Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

Motion made and Question proposed,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the borough constituency of Cardiff, North-West in the room of Michael Hilary Arthur Roberts Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Wigley.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Speaker: If it is opposed, it will stand over until the beginning of public business.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HAMPSHIRE BILL [Lords]

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Clause 37

PROVISION AGAINST DANGER TO NAVIGATION

Amendment made: In page 27, line 41, leave out "Docks Board" and insert "Harbour Authority". — [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Question, That the Bill, as amended, be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Student Doctors

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what reports he has received about students initiating treatment on behalf of doctors in hospitals.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Under long-standing arrangements agreed with the medical profession and the universities, final-year medical students may assist in hospitals when a house officer is absent on leave. I have received a very brief report from the representatives of junior hospital doctors outlining nine cases of alleged abuse of these arrangements. In only one case is it alleged that a student initiated treatment. I have asked the British Medical Association for further details.

Mr. Price: Is this not a scandalous situation? Has the Minister received the letter that I sent to the Secretary of State on 13 April, in which an experienced state registered nurse in my constituency alleges that it is common practice

in Lewisham hospital for students to be given the bleeper of the houseman who is meant to be on duty, and in that way final-year students are made responsible for patients who in many cases are very ill? What will the Minister do when he receives the BMA report? Will he stop this practice once and for all?

Mr. Clarke: There are very clear arrangements which closely limit the extent to which final-year medical students take part in treatment. We shall take seriously any allegations that the arrangements are not being followed. At the moment, all that I have received from the junior doctors is a short account which does not give dates or names and which does not identify any units. As soon as we have identified cases that can be investigated we shall of course follow them up arid make sure that the perfectly straightforward and well accepted arrangements are followed in every case.

Mr. Viggers: Is it not a fact that students, under proper control, have always taken care of patients, and that, without that opportunity for students to gain experience, it would not be possible for them to qualify properly as doctors?

Mr. Clarke: That is entirely right. In the practice of medicine it is not possible for someone to be turned overnight from a student who has never had contact with patient care into someone who carries some responsibility as a house officer. That is why final-year medical students are allowed to take over some duties when a house officer is on leave. No one has ever objected to that, and if anyone gives us particulars of the arrangements not being followed or being abused in any way, we shall step in to make sure that the proper arrangements are followed.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Are not nearly 1,500 doctors unemployed in this country? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there should be no occasion on which a student is left in sole control for a day or a night?

Mr. Clarke: With respect, the first part of the hon. Lady's supplementary is not relevant to the question.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Yes it is.

Mr. Clarke: There is no incentive to a health authority to adopt any arrangement to use final-year medical students. The financial and staff savings to the health authority are minuscule. We are talking about an arrangement whereby final-year medical students are allowed to cover very restricted duties for a house officer when he is on leave. They remain under the supervision of a consultant. I await any evidence of a case where that practice has not been followed properly, and once we have that evidence we shall step in to make sure that it is followed. The 1,500 unemployed doctors are difficult to find. They tend largely to be in the south-east, and they are not people whose qualifications are relevant to the house officer duties about which we are talking.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister examine the instances in which junior and senior house officers who are on holiday are not replaced because the health authorities are faced with extra bills and cuts in their budgets? That is what is happening and that is why students are occasionally left on their own.

Mr. Clarke: The number of doctors employed in the hospital service has greatly increased in the past three years. The hon. Lady is entering into local disputes about


whether locum cover ought to be provided for junior doctors, and making from the few incidents that she has encountered and complaints that she has heard a general case that Britain is short of doctors. That is not so.

"Human Relations in Obstetrics"

Miss Joan Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to revise his Department's "Human Relations in Obstetrics", published in 1961; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): The series of reports being prepared by the maternity services advisory committee on good practice in maternity and neonatal care will, when complete, supersede the 1961 memorandum. The committee's first report, on antenatal care, gave prominence to human relations aspects and has been well received by professional and lay bodies. We look forward to receiving its second report, on care during childbirth, later this year and its third, on postnatal and neonatal care, in the course of next year.

Miss Lestor: I welcome that reply from the Minister, but is he aware that the report is long overdue, since the present report and recommendations on "Human Relations in Obstetrics" is more than 20 years old. When the Minister examines the various reports that he will be compiling with a view to making recommendations, will he give special attention to that part of the present report that encourages women during the process of confinement to have full facilities for smoking, which is now actively discouraged for maternity care?

Mr. Finsberg: It is time that the document was updated. I am glad that the hon. Lady was pleased with my progress report. I shall examine carefully what she has said because hon. Members recognise that there is a serious danger in smoking and none more so than when pregnant women smoke. Once the dangers have been pointed out—it is necessary to be careful about that—it is impossible to go further than saying as strongly as possible that it is a foolish and dangerous practice.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In any revision, will the Minister comment on obstetrics services to prospective surrogate mothers? Will he ask representatives of obstetricians and midwives to use every power they have to oppose the development of surrogate motherhood? Will he further ensure that the Government introduce every possible legal obstructive mechanism to prevent the development of this practice within the United Kingdom?

Mr. Finsberg: I shall draw the attention of the Warnock committee to what the hon. Gentleman said. He will appreciate that the Government set up the committee to examine this and other associated questions. However, the point he has made is one that the committee should look at.

"Health Care and its Costs"

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the booklet "Health Care and its Costs" takes account of the demographic factors when assessing growth.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): Yes, Sir. "Health Care and its Costs"

describes fully the impact on the Health Service of the rising proportion of old and very old people in the population between 1971–72 and 1981–82; and of changes in the birth rate. During that period the number of people aged 65 and over rose by 16 per cent., and the number of people in their mid-70s and beyond rose by about 25 per cent. The birth rate fell considerably to 1977, rose somewhat in the next three years, and dropped slightly in 1981. The document explains how hospital and community health services were expanded to meet the needs of the growing numbers of old people, and how maternity services have responded to the birth rate change.

Mr. Johnson: Is this not a political document that is designed to make the Government's performance on health finance more acceptable? Would not any demographer inside or outside the Chamber consider some of these statistics slightly spurious? If it is a political document, as many people think, why has it been paid for by the Government, and not by Conservative Central Office?

Mr. Fowler: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, the document to which he refers covers the period from 1971 to 1981. It may have slipped his memory that during that period a Labour Government were in power. It is true that I cannot avoid uncomfortable facts for the hon. Gentleman, such as the Labour Government's cut in capital spending in the mid-1970s. The document is an objective description of what has taken place inside the Health Service and should be treated in that way.

Mr. Marlow: In view of the answer that the Department of Health and Social Security gave me that statistics available in terms of projections give a far more accurate assessment of the population in growth areas than the out-of-date statistics currently used in RAWP calculations, will my right hon. Friend move towards these more accurate figures?

Mr. Fowler: That subject is kept constantly under review. I am aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend about his area, and clearly there are other similar areas. However, the Government will keep that under review.

Mr. Terry Davis: Why do the figures stop with the year 1981–82? Why was it not possible to bring them up to date to take account of the changes up to 1982–83?

Mr. Fowler: Because the 1981 figures are the last full figures that the Government have.

Benefit Claimants

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in how many cases applicants for benefit have been required to surrender insurance policies.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): Since no one can be required to surrender an insruance policy, I assume the hon. Member has in mind the number of people who may have decided to do so in order to qualify for benefit subsequently. We have no information on this, but the indications are that very few people have been excluded from benefit by virtue of holding insurance policies.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that the risk of substantial loss resulting from the virtually compulsory surrender of insurance policies has led to widespread


anxiety? Does the Minister agree that the concessions that have recently been announced, because an election may be approaching, have not been sufficient either to relieve anxiety or to reduce the penalty for thrift or misfortune?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is slightly overstating his case. Only people with an insurance policy whose surrender value was above the capital limit, which is at present more than £2,500, would have to surrender it, as distinct from running down the rest of their capital. The figure from next November will be £4,500. That is a useful, sensible and balanced improvement.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister keeps telling the House how much thrift should be encouraged, and does not this legislation do exactly the opposite and discourage thrift?

Mr. Newton: Any capital rule can be said to discourage thrift. Many insurance policies are used as a form of saving, which is not as readily distinguishable from other forms of saving as some hon. Members suggest. The £1,500 special exemption figure is a reasonable balance to draw.

Mr. Foster: The Minister knows that we welcome the concession in the Budget, but he could have eliminated the problem completely at very little cost, yet failed to do so. What will the Minister do about redundancy payments? The Government have got rid of the earnings-related supplement and are now taxing benefits. However, does he agree that something should be done about redundancy payments? Do not the unemployed suffer sufficiently without this type of indignity?

Mr. Newton: By next November the capital cut-off figure will have risen by 50 per cent. in only 12 months. That is a significant help to those with redundancy payments. The difficulty of distinguishing between redundancy payments and savings, except at the instant when the payment is made, would be insuperable.

Invalidity Benefit

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he now expects the Government's cut in the real value of invalidity benefit to be restored; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): As has been stated consistently, the abatement will be restored when invalidity benefit comes into tax. As an earnest of this intention we restored the abatement of the invalidity allowances in November 1981.

Mr. Morris: Surely the Minister must accept that this is the unkindest cut of all by the Government. Is he aware that because of the cut—at the latest date for which figures are available — a married man on invalidity benefit, with three children, lost no less than £286 a year from a Government who promised to single them out for special help? Is that not utterly disgraceful treatment of long-term sick and disabled people?

Mr. Rossi: As usual, the right hon. Gentleman has grossly exaggerated the position and so distorted the truth. Virtually all the recipients of this benefit would have been worse off in the past financial year if the unabated benefit had been brought into taxation. The cost of restoring the abatement would have been £60 million, whereas the tax forgone was £90 million.

Mr. Ashley: How long must disabled housewives wait before the end of the discriminatory household duties test? If the Government are able to give a response within one hour to the proposal to abolish lead in petrol, why are housewives still waiting for action on the report by the advisory committee in 1980 saying that the test should be abolished?

Mr. Rossi: We are not yet in a position to make a statement, but we shall do so as soon as possible.

Mr. John: When will the taxation scheme come into being? The Minister knows full well that many of those who suffer from the 5 per cent. abatement in invalidity benefit would not have been eligible for taxation.

Mr. Rossi: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's statement. If the benefit had been unabated, virtually all of the recipients would have been above the tax threshold last year. That is the position. However, the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Health Care

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has further plans to develop a partnership between the state and the private sector in health care.

Mr. Fowler: We are continuing to encourage health authorities to co-operate with the private sector. We recently discussed with regional health authority chairmen the scope for a closer partnership between the two sectors and hope shortly to continue that discussion with district health authority chairmen.

Mr. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend know that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) called, in a recent speech in my constituency, for the requisition of private clinics? Would not such action completely destroy the fundamental partnership between the private and public sectors? Is it not in the interests of medicine in the widest sense of the word and of about 300,000 trade unionists that the private sector should flourish, encouraged by the Government of the day?

Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The private sector adds to total health care, and it must be the right of any individual to use his money for private health insurance schemes. The Labour party's official pledges and those of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) can be seen as acts of vandalism against the Health Service.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he is not combining private and public health care, but is hiving off sectors of public care to the private sector? That is what he is doing in Halifax. He has asked Calderdale health authority, which is unanimous in wanting a new laundry in Halifax under state supervision, to transfer laundry care to private operators. That is wholly against the wishes of the staff and of Calderdale health authority.

Mr. Fowler: Calderdale health authority saw my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health and is examining the figures that have been put forward. The policy decision rests with the authority. Clearly, we do not


intend to destroy the partnership that we want to develop between the private sector and the NHS. That is entirely the Labour party's policy.

Mrs. Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the private sector is also of great benefit to ordinary NHS patients, who would be infinitely further down the queue if a substantial number of people did not choose to spend their money, on which they have paid taxes, on their health care? In addition to speaking to the health authorities, will my right hon. Friend have a talk with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about giving positive help to people who wish to employ their money in insurance for health care?

Mr. Fowler: As my hon. Friend recognises, that is a question for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that private health care adds to the sum total of health care. The 4 million people insured by private health insurance schemes include many trade unionists. The Opposition should bear that in mind.

Mrs. Renée Short: What is the Secretary of State's view of the large private hospitals, such as the one that has recently opened in London, which have many obstetric and paediatric beds and which take paediatricians from the NHS? Is he aware that paediatricians are in short supply, as are the specially trained nurses who care for ill neonates? They are almost unobtainable in NHS units. Indeed, consultants in NHS units are having to turn babies away because they cannot get trained nurses to staff their beds. How does the right hon. Gentleman justify that? It is not partnership, but robbery.

Mr. Fowler: I am quite prepared to look at any case that the hon. Lady puts to me. However, our policy is to encourage partnership between the private sector and the NHS. If the hon. Lady wants a good example of that partnership and of the role that the private sector plays in training, she should visit the Nuffield hospital in Wolverhampton, near her constituency, where she will see the post-registration training that is organised there by the private sector.

Mr. Greenway: If my right hon. Friend has not already done so, will he evaluate the costs of similar services in the private and public sectors? Will he ensure that where it is cheaper—as it sometimes certainly is—to achieve the same provision in the private sector, that provision is used for the full benefit of NHS patients?

Mr. Fowler: I quite agree that there is a danger in having a monopoly in any service, or in any area. One of the very positive things that the private sector does is to show that things can be organised differently and, at times, better.

Mr. Terry Davis: Since the Secretary of State is so committed to private practice, will he recognise that there is a fundamental flaw in it? Doctors engage in it to make money. As that is their motive, they have a financial incentive to undertake treatment that need not be given and to cut corners at the risk of a patient. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the partnership of which he boasts between private practice and the NHS means that the NHS often has to repair the damage done by private doctors such as Dr. Dutta of the Harley Street Diagnostic Clinic? Does not the Secretary of State accept that that is injurious to the patient and a burden on the NHS?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the ability of consultants to work within the private sector has existed since the inception of the NHS, and under successive Labour Governments. The only policy or alternative that the hon. Gentleman can put forward on behalf of his party is the abolition of pay beds and the banning of private sector medicine. The public will choose, and they will decide against the hon. Gentleman.

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent steps he has taken to promote the full implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will be taking any action to raise the general standard of provision by local authorities under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act up to that of the existing best.

Mr. Rossi: Local authorities are aware of their duties under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, and implementation is a matter for them.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister confirm that although the very rich have become richer under this Government, the number of telephones available to the disabled, for example, has more than halved because of the Government's failure to implement in full the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that a telephone can be a lifeline to a disabled person? What will he do about that?

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, contrary to his implication, expenditure on personal social services by local authorities has risen by 6 per cent. in real terms over the past three years and that they have budgeted for a further increase of about 2 per cent. this year. There has been a drop in the number of new telephone installations, but not in the total provision or in expenditure, which has, indeed, increased again.

Mr. Ioan Evans: How can the Minister tolerate the tremendous differences between the provision made by one local authority and another? Will he set minimum standards that local authorities will have to maintain and at the same time make sure that local authorities have the resources to ensure that the Act is fully implemented, as Parliament intended?

Mr. Rossi: The advice that I have received on minimum standards is that disability and the need that it occasions varies so much from individual to individual that the laying down of norms or standards of universal application would simply introduce a self-defeating inflexibility.

Mr. McCrindle: Does not the uneven progress under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act show how wrong it is for the House to pass desirable legislation, raise the expectations of the disabled and then leave it to others —principally county councils—to raise the necessary funds to implement it?

Mr. Rossi: It is not an easy Act to administer, but, overall, its effects have been beneficial. Nevertheless, it has created many problems in its implementation.

Mr. Wigley: With regard to the access provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, and the


need to strengthen them, what is the position on the order that the Government intend to introduce, as part of the building regulations, to improve the standards of access for disabled people into buildings?

Mr. Rossi: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware that one county council is threatening to take a severely disabled woman to court because she cannot pay for her home help out of her supplementary benefit and owes the council £30? What is the Minister's policy on that issue? What action is he taking over Liverpool's failure, as reported to him by RADAR last week, to honour the undertaking it gave him to provide telephones in cases where need had been accepted? Will the Minister now use his full powers in the case of Liverpool?

Mr. Rossi: With regard to the first case, if the right hon. Gentleman will send me the details I shall certainly look into the matter in the usual way. With regard to Liverpool, I have received a letter from RADAR. I am having inquiries made immediately and I am waiting for the reply. The action to be taken will depend on the reply.

District Health Authorities

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in how many district health authorities the amount deducted from their 1983–84 budget for efficiency savings exceeds the amount determined to be growth money for the same period.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The information requested is not available centrally because regional health authorities are responsible for allocating resources to and agreeing the targets for efficiency savings with district authorities.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that we shall not be surprised that he read that wholly devious answer extremely quickly? Is he also aware that the level of statistical performance of the Government is on a par with that of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who told me that the Government had produced 4,000 doctors, which he repeated in a party political broadcast last week? The number turns out to be 3,500 doctors, rounded up to 4,000 by his officials. The truth is that there is hardly a health authority in the country whose allocated growth money exceeds the efficiency savings that have been made. It is part of the fabric of lies—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I presume that the hon. Gentleman is not accusing the Front Bench of lying?

Mr. Thomas: Merely the Government, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not good enough. The hon. Gentleman must not lower our standards to that extent. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw any charge of lying.

Mr. Thomas: The Government's statistical record—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw"]—could be described as one of terminological inexactitude.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will withdraw the charge of lying.

Mr. Thomas: If you were to impute, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: There is no need for argument. All the hon. Gentleman has to do is to say that he withdraws the

charge of lying. I apply the same rules to all hon. Members and they must apply to the hon. Gentleman. We must try to maintain our standards.

Mr. Thomas: If you ask me, Mr. Speaker, I must of course, out of respect to you, withdraw that charge.

Mr. Speaker: I am very much obliged.

Mr. Clarke: In reply to the question, in so far as I remember it, I do not know how much money the hon. Gentleman wants us to spend on collecting these damn-fool statistics, which, when he gets them, he tries to misuse. We have 192 district health authorities and we could, if we wanted, collect centrally the details from all of them of the growth money that they have been allocated by their regional health authorities and the efficiency savings that they have been asked to make. If it is the specific concern of the hon. Gentleman, we could collect figures for any one district health authority, but there is no point in someone at the Elephant and Castle collecting the details from 192 authorities. The hon. Gentleman wants the figures to demonstrate that, somehow, we are not increasing growth in the Health Service. Spending on the Health Service has gone up 16 per cent. ahead of the RPI since the Government came to office and, making allowance for pay and price increases and the extra cost of the Health Service, growth stands at 7·5 per cent. The hon. Gentleman is trying to prove the impossible. If he gets the answer from all the district health authorities, which he can do by going around to them all, he will not be able to prove his preposterous thesis.

Mr. Joseph Dean: The Minister is aware, because I have written to him recently about the problem, that in the Kirkstall area of Leeds, because of present allocations, the long-awaited building of the clinic has had to be postponed, not because of the capital costs — the authority was ready to go out to tender—but because the insignificant sum of £27,000 per year could not be found for revenue costs. Will the Minister use his good offices to ensure that the clinic goes ahead and that the expectations of the people of Kirkstall are realised as quickly as possible?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has already had a word with me about the problem in Kirkstall and I shall, of course, look into it for him. As I understand it, that district health authority is having to make a choice between competing priorities in its district. That has always been a feature of the Health Service and will always be, whatever happens, but across the country as a whole the Government have exempted the Health Service from any cuts in public spending. In fact, we are greatly increasing the resources going to the Health Service for obvious and perfectly understandable reasons.

Trent (Health Services)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to improve health services in the Trent regional health authority area.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Yes, we shall continue to do so. This year we have given the region an additional £17 million growth money and this should help it to continue to improve and expand its services.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the Minister realise that this is not a question of allocating money to the regions? Is he


aware that the report of the Resource Allocations Working Party recommended that the policy should also carry through to the areas where services are provided? Will he bear in mind that Montagu hospital is still under duress? Will he ensure that anything allocated to the Trent region and to the other three authorities involved is passed through to the Montagu hospital? Will the Minister visit the Montagu hospital and the surrounding catchment area to ensure that what we have always said about patients coming first is carried out fairly and justly by the Government?

Mr. Clarke: The RAWP formula that we use demonstrates that the Trent region needs growth money. That is why it has £17 million extra this year, which represents 2·4 per cent. real growth in services for the region as a whole. That money has to make its way through to priorities in each of the districts. The Montagu hospital has been the subject of controversy in the past. The hon. Gentleman has made frequent representations that it should be kept and improved as an acute hospital. The present position is that the Doncaster health authority is consulting about the future of the Montagu hospital. The documents are out and views are now forthcoming. We are pledged to continue its use as an acute hospital. I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's invitation to visit it, but that might be more appropriate when the consultation process has gone a little further.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: Has the Minister considered the case, about which I wrote recently to his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, of one of my constituents who moved last year from Scotland to the Doncaster area, which is in the Trent health region, and found that the level of care that she had experienced in Scotland was not available to her in Doncaster? Will he take steps to remove such regional disparity and ensure that our National Health Service is truly national?

Mr. Clarke: I visited that hospital in Doncaster in the summer of last year. I have no doubt that the quality of care that patients receive in Doncaster is of the highest standard. There are certainly differences between different parts of the country. That is why we have this so-called RAWP formula, which we use when distributing the growth money so that some parts of the country get more growth than others. That is the background to the disputes that we sometimes have in southern England, where well funded districts find it difficult to accept the need to rationalise and to change their services, and are encouraged in their resistance by the arguments of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) and others who try to pretend that the background is always that of national cuts. The Government are trying to rationalise and to improve the efficiency of the service and to release resources to go to places such as Doncaster and other parts of the country that need more money.

Overseas Visitors

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report the total amount received in payment of health services by overseas visitors under the 1982 arrangements at the Central Middlesex, Wembley and Northwick Park hospitals, together with the total number of patients questioned about their entitlement to free National Health Service services at these hospitals.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: All new patients at each hospital are questioned. At the Central Middlesex hospital 3,154 patients were questioned between October last year and February 1983 and charges amounting to £5,934 levied. At Wembley hospital 4,100 patients have been questioned since October 1982 and no charges levied. At Northwick Park charges of £2,367 have been levied but information about the number of patients questioned is not available. In view of the problems in the NHS at the time the scheme came into operation, and of the fact that they refer to the winter months, when tourism is at its lowest, I should not be inclined to attach too much importance to the figures at this stage.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that these figures reveal, as do the national figures, that this is one of the biggest nonsenses perpetrated on the National Health Service? Thousands of people have been questioned and my estimate of income throughout the country is about £300,000 — not the £6 million referred to by the Minister. Does the Minister recall the case of the Royal Free hospital where, of the 8,000 people interviewed, eight had to pay and a total of £167 was forthcoming? Will the Minister now consult the Commission for Racial Equality on the effects of this policy on race relations in areas such as Brent?

Mr. Finsberg: I notice that, in company with his colleagues, the hon. Gentelman denigrates any attempt to get extra money for the Health Service. There have been no allegations whatever of racial intolerance in this matter.

Mr. McQuarrie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of overseas visitors who come to this country and have to pay is acceptable to the vast majority of British people because of the additional funds thereby made available to the National Health Service, so ensuring that those who live here—whether their views are racial or otherwise—may enjoy the benefits of the NHS, which the Government have made better than any previous Government?

Mr. Finsberg: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. Any sensible person who is not covered by reciprocal arrangements would, before coming to this country, take out insurance.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not obvious that the Minister has created this enormous machinery simply to support some minor political point? Are we not spending far more in administrative costs in trying to get back smaller amounts than can ever be justified by any real attempt to raise money for the NHS?

Mr. Finsberg: I could attempt to utter some words of wisdom to the hon. Lady. She had better wait until we get the full figures.

Benefits

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to be able to announce the savings he expects in the part-year 1983–84 as a result of the changeover to the historic system of measuring inflation for the purpose of uprating benefits.

Mr. Newton: I do not anticipate there will be any such savings.

Mr. Foulkes: That is unbelievable. Does the Minister seriously believe that he can hide the clawback by the


deception of changing the system? Is he aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury answered my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) on 11 April by saying that the clawback from pensioners would be £210 million? When will the Government allow the pensioners a real increase in their standard of living, instead of making them eke out a living on the poverty line?

Mr. Newton: There is no clawback—

Mr. Foulkes: There is. It is a deception.

Mr. Newton: There is no adjustment. Pensioners keep the pension rate that they have been paid since last November and they will receive a further increase next November based on price rises between last May and this May. On any likely assumption, the pensioners will be a lot better off when this Parliament ends than when it began.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that it ill becomes the Labour party — which changed the system to make savings and failed to pay the pensioners their Christmas bonus—to make such comments?

Mr. Newton: I have consistently sought not to dwell too much on the embarrassment on the Labour Benches. It remains the fact, however, that in 1976 they changed the system to save what would now be £1 billion at the expense of the pensioners.

Mr. John: Does the Minister agree that if inflation is running at 6 per cent. next November, as opposed to an anticipated 4 per cent. in May, the Government will ensure that nobody loses as a result of this changeover?

Mr. Newton: The Government had made it clear that they intended to proceed originally on the basis of forecast with adjustment. The change to a historic method means that pensioners will have a larger uprating than they would otherwise have had.

Queen's Park Hospital, Blackburn

Mr. Straw: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when construction of phases 1, 2 and 3 of the capital building programme at the Queen's Park hospital, Blackburn, will begin.

Mr. Finsberg: The North-Western regional health authority is currently reviewing the capital projects to be started during the next 10 years or so, and is likely to determine its programme in May. I cannot anticipate the start dates of developments at Queen's Park hospital, but I am assured that the authority continues to regard the improvement of services in Blackburn as a high priority.

Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that three years ago the chairman of the regional health authority promised that the building of a paediatric unit would begin last month and that the previous Minister for Health promised that the building of a maternity unit would begin in 1984–85? As a result of cuts in the capital programmes of the regional health authority, these desperately needed facilities have been delayed yet again. As these facilities are so urgently needed, will the Minister say today that the paediatric unit will go ahead?

Mr. Finsberg: The delay has not been due in any way to financial difficulties. That assurance has been given to

me by the authorities. The capital allocation to the region has gone up in real terms by 10·6 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1983–84.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Dykes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be attending the CBI annual dinner.

Mr. Dykes: Has my right hon. Friend had time to see the remarks of Mr. Terence Duffy, of the engineering union,. who has declared that the Leader of the Opposition has his defence policies totally wrong? Will she commend Mr. Duffy's remarks to the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Opposition Benches, especially his robust declaration that the only path to genuine peace is multilateral disarmament?

The Prime Minister: Yes, like my hon. Friend I saw those most excellent remarks, which, so far as I remember, were to the effect that if we really wish to keep our freedom we must have the capacity, will and courage to defend it, and if we wish to reduce the amount we spend on armaments we must do it by seeing that both sides reduce their armaments in an equal and balanced way.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 19 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Roberts: Will the Prime Minister give a few minutes today to consider the fall-off of 17 per cent in the output of manufacturing industry since her Government took power, and the much larger fall-off in the west midlands? Will she accept that the marginal improvement in the figures recently is no significant sign of economic recovery and that the appointment of a Minister does not go anywhere to solve the west midlands' problems?

The Prime Minister: The output of manufacturing industry has indeed fallen, here and elsewhere. But the ironic thing is that in the first quarter of this year we achieved an all-time record for car sales, with retail sales in the first quarter being 4·5 per cent. up. If our industries had really good design and competitive pricing, a greater proportion of that would have gone into British jobs.

Mr. Viggers: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Viggers: Has my right hon. Friend had time in her busy day to note recent press comment on the south Atlantic fund, much of which has been inaccurate and unfair and no doubt disturbs those who gave to the fund? Does she agree that the fund is administered by trustees in the best long-term interests of the widows, children and others who suffered loss, and that those most deeply concerned are grateful for the way in which they have been helped and their interests safeguarded?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I have seen a number of comments about the south Atlantic fund in the past few days. It is a charitable fund, and subject to the laws of charities, unlike the Penlee fund, which was a disaster fund and was not so subject. It is vital that the trustees also have regard to the long-term interests of those who have been disabled and wounded, and some of their needs may not emerge for a long time. In the meantime, the trust has disbursed some £6 million and I believe that it is properly acting as trustee and looking after the interests of those who are the true beneficiaries of the fund.

Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Lady is in a mood for clearing up inaccuracies, can she tell us whether she was correctly reported at the weekend when she claimed that hers will be the first Government to go to the country with a lower inflation rate than they inherited? Does she not recall that she inherited a lower inflation rate from the Labour Government than the one with which she left us when she was a member of the last Conservative Government?

The Prime Minister: Assuming that the forecasts on inflation are reasonable — I know that our inflation forecasts have been wrong for a long time—even if inflation were to go up a bit in the coming months, and even if prices were to increase a little in the year — [Interruption.]

Mr. Healey: Cut and run.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is afraid of an election, is he? Afraid? Frightened? Frit? Could not take it? Cannot stand it? If I were going to cut and run, I should have gone after the Falklands. Frightened! Right now inflation is lower than it has been for 13 years—a record which the right hon. Gentleman could not begin to touch.

Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Lady is now to join the Chancellor of the Exchequer in favour of the cut-and-run election that will make excellent news throughout the country, because we are certainly happy to have it whenever they wish. [Interruption.] I just want, if I can, to ask the right hon. Lady—whether or not she goes for the election; even if she decides to stick it out and face the figures and the facts—to try to give the correct figures to the country. Will she acknowledge that she inherited from the Labour Government a much lower inflation figure than the one she left us when she was a member of the Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)? I know that she never likes to defend anything that she did in that Government, but she had better do so now.

The Prime Minister: Our performance on inflation is far better— [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question".] Our performance on inflation is far better than the right hon. Gentleman's best, and our performance on the upper level is not nearly as bad as the right hon. Gentleman's worst. He cannot get away from that.

Mr. Foot: Does not the right hon. Lady's reply mean that the inflation figures that she gave to the country at the weekend were false?

The Prime Minister: I do not recollect giving any specific figures at the weekend. Can the right hon. Gentleman quote them? I did not give any specific figures to the country at the weekend on inflation, but I shall now

repeat what I said. Inflation is lower than it has been for some 12 or 13 years, and that has happened under this Government.

Mr. Cryer: Very good, Michael. Game, set and match.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend reflect today upon the wide welcome that has been given both inside and outside the House to the Government's statement yesterday on lead, in particular on lead in petrol? Does she recognise that many people are gratified that the Government kept an open mind on this important issue, in spite of the Lawther committee's conclusions over two years ago? Will she assure the House that the Government will take the initiative with our EC partners in seeing that vehicles running on lead-free petrol are on our roads as soon as is practicably possible and, I hope, well before the end of this decade?

The Prime Minister: I should point out that before the decision that was announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the Government had taken the decision substantially to reduce the level of lead in petrol in all cars. That was the fastest way of reducing lead that we could possibly have chosen. In addition, we are now prepared to go to new car models, which will have no lead whatever in their petrol. As my right hon. Friend said, we must do that in conjunction with Europe and we shall be among the first to see that we try to act together to secure the appropriate directive. Altogether, the Government will have done more to reduce lead in the human body than any other Government.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Prime Minister aware that her refusal to meet a deputation from the March for Jobs which starts in Glasgow on Saturday will be seen as indifference on her part to the plight of millions of British people who are today refused the opportunity of earning their living? Does the right hon. Lady believe that mass unemployment and all the misery, poverty and insecurity that accompanies it are part of the Victorian values that she admires so much?

The Prime Minister: I shall not be meeting that march to London for jobs. I do not believe that marches will in any way help to procure the jobs of the future. What the Government are doing by pursuing sound financial policies, by giving help to small businesses and, in particular, by giving help to new products, will do far more to secure the jobs of the future than any number of marches.

Mr. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the nation that it remains the paramount aim of Her Majesty's Government to reduce inflation? Will she accept the congratulations of the House, because that is the greatest blessing that can come to the sick, the poor, the disabled, the pensioners and the unemployed?

The Prime Minister: It is indeed our foremost aim to reduce inflation further. We must continue with our policies. Some of our competitors already have a lower rate of inflation than we do. To pursue any other policy would be actively to plunder the savings of pensioners.

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Foulkes: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the recent leaders in the Sunday Standard and The Scotsman, which point out that the continued uncertainty over Ravenscraig and the sell-out of Anderson Strathclyde show the Secretary of State for Scotland to be both inpotent and imcompetent? When will the Prime Minister recognise what the newspapers and the people of Scotland have recognised for a long time and bring in someone who is prepared to defend Scottish interests?

The Prime Minister: Ravenscraig's problem, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is to get more orders for steel in a world that has a great overcapacity of steel—

Mr. Foulkes: Rubbish.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says "Rubbish". How does he think that any company will succeed unless it can procure orders and fulfil them at good prices and with delivery on time? That is the way to try to get more orders for Ravenscraig and that is the way in which the chairman of the BSC board is proceeding.

Mr. Colvin: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 19 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to read the recently published document by the Department of Industry entitled "How to make your business grow", which is a practical guide on Government assistance to small firms? I acknowledge and welcome what the Government have done, but does my right hon. Friend agree that business in Britain is over-regulated? As we erode one regulation we usually impose yet another. Therefore, will she consider including in the Conservative manifesto a commitment to deregulate Britain and to remove some of the regulatory shackles that are presently stifling free enterprise?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend recognises that the Government have done more to encourage small businesses to start and expand than any other Government. That is generally recognised by those

who are concerned to create the new wealth in Britain. We have tried to help small businesses by altering some sections of the Employment Protection Act 1975, by substantially reducing the number of forms and by increasing the levels for VAT registration. We shall continue to do the best that we can to ensure that they can operate as smoothly and effectively as possible.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: In some quiet moment will the Prime Minister think back to what she said prior to the last general election? At some time will she relate to us all the promises that she made that she has not fulfilled? When she talks about inflation, will she also consider unemployment as one of the issues on which she has failed the nation? When will she do something about reducing the number of unemployed in Britain to bring us back on to an even keel?

The Prime Minister: I have already said that we have a superlative record on inflation. Unemployment is a worldwide problem. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will remember that the Labour Government more than doubled the level of unemployment with which they began.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Townsend: In view of the growing number of allegations of murder and mayhem in Matabeleland. will my right hon. Friend support the calls for Commonwealth observers to be sent to Zimbabwe? Will she give an assurance to the House that if the present military situation there deteriorates into straight tribal warfare, the strong British Army training team will be instantly withdrawn?

The Prime Minister: We are of course concerned, as I think a number of people are, about the reports of what has been happening in Zimbabwe. We have let our views be known to the Government there. The British military training team is at present doing a superb job. I believe that its presence is reassuring to many people who are deeply concerned about what is happening there. I think that it should stay there for the time being. With regard to what my hon. Friend said about Commonwealth observers, if there were a call for them from Zimbabwe or from the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, we would most earnestly consider it, but at present there is not.

Rockwell Graphic Systems, Preston

Mr. Stan Thorne: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House—[Interruption.] — under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threatened unemployment at Rockwell Graphic Systems, Preston".
The management of that firm, which is part of a conglomerate multinational, the Rockwell International Corporation—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The only reason why I did not ask the hon. Gentleman to wait until the noise had died down was that we have other business and there is a dual debate today. Because those two debates are abbreviated, I wanted to save the time of the House.

Mr. Thorne: I shall be as brief as I can.
Rockwell International Corporation has a head office in Pittsburgh. The management in the firm in my constituency claims that there is decline in market demand for rotary presses for the newspaper industry. It is the only manufacturer of rotary presses in the United Kingdom. Recent pruning of the labour force, which has enabled apprentices to be kept on, is to be followed by further job losses in the firm.
The demands of the firm's American masters are that there should be new work practices and further job losses. They argue that there is no alternative, but the trade unions in the firm have produced a plan that suggests that the redundancies are not necessary. Overall, 1,200 jobs are at stake. A debate is essential as a prerequisite to a meeting of the newspaper proprietors, Rockwell, the Department of Industry and the trade unions, so that a plan can be produced to protect the manufacture of rotary presses in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Treasury is to visit the plant on Friday this week because he believes that it is a technically advanced company. He wants to see the CADCAM demonstration project. On those grounds alone, it seems essential that the firm should continue to operate in the United Kingdom; otherwise it would be sensible to take it into public ownership so that we can plan its future.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) gave me notice before 12 noon today that he would seek to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threatened unemployment at Rockwell Graphic Systems, Preston".
As the House knows, under Standing order No. 10 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision. The House will have listened anxiously to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order; therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

New Writ (Cardiff, North-West)

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to move,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the borough constituency of Cardiff, North-West in the room of Michael Hilary Arthur Roberts Esquire, deceased.
I move the writ for the Cardiff, North-West by-election for three clear reasons. First, there is a vacancy there following the sad death of Michael Roberts on 10 February. The people of that constituency need to be represented in Parliament when important legislation such as the Finance Bill, the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and the Data Protection Bill are going through the House.
Secondly, with escalating unemployment, controversy about a nuclear bomb factory at Llanishen in the constituency and a threat to the Health Service, which is a major employer in Cardiff, North-West, there are numerous issues in the constituency that need to be debated as a matter of urgency. A by-election gives an opportunity to do so in such a way that the eyes of the media and the attention of Ministers is drawn to the debate.
Thirdly, all four parties have been geared up for such an election since March. The candidates have long been chosen and all have started on some aspects of their campaigns. The press widely reported 21 April as the likely date for the by-election. Then 5 May became such a hot favourite that last Monday Conservative Central Office deemed it appropriate to take the unusual step of informing the Press Gallery that there would not be a by-election on that date.
Deliberately or accidentally, the electorate and the parties have been led a merry dance by the Government's shilly-shallying on the election. It is time for the uncertainty to be put to an end. I am therefore moving that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant for a writ, which means that there would be a by-election, in accordance with the statutory timetable, no later than Thursday 19 May.
No doubt I will be accused of breaking the convention that the party holding the seat moves the writ, but it is a convention and not an immutable rule. The Speaker's Conference of 1973 decided not to make it a rule. As such, the convention is for the guidance of wise men and the slavish obedience of fools. It was to give the Conservative Government an opportunity to move the writ if they saw fit that we held back last week after giving notice of our intention. They have not done so.
There are precedents for our action. Ten years ago the writ for the Tory-held Berwick-upon-Tweed seat was moved from the Back Benches. That writ was blocked by the then Tory Government, but the voters, when in due course the election took place, took revenge on the Government and elected a Liberal to the House. In 1962, 20 years ago, when the Tory Government delayed the Orpington by-election, the voters similarly took revenge. The Government have salutary precedents to warn them of the harvest that they reap when they hold back by-elections.
The timing of by-elections has been a controversial subject down the years. In 1973, when the Speaker's Conference considered the matter, it recommended that a by-election should be moved within three months of a vacancy arising. The conference further recommended


that if that timescale meant that the by-election might clash with local elections—as would have happened on 5 May in Cardiff—
the by-election should, if practical, be held earlier.
It was practical to hold the by-election earlier in Cardiff, but the Government chose not to do so. If it was impractical to hold the by-election earlier, the Speaker's Conference suggested that
the period should be lengthened by the shortest possible additional time.
In this case, the shortest period means that the by-election would be held on Thursday 19 May. That is what we are seeking in moving the motion.
It is true that in the 1973 Conference a recommendation was made that a relaxation of the three-month rule should be made in the fifth year of a Parliament to avoid the by-election and general election running into each other, but, as the Prime Minister repeatedly reminds us, we are not in the fifth year of this Parliament.
However the possibility of such a general election, rumours about which were dampened with petrol this weekend by Government spokesmen, brings us to the heart of the matter. The Government do not want to hold this by-election at all if there is to be a June general election in case vibrations from Cardiff rock the Tory election gunboat off its course. If there is to be a June general election, let the Government come clean now. Six or seven weeks notice have been given for several general elections since the war. We are now within seven weeks of 9 June. The Government should tell the House what their intention is. If the writ for this by-election is delayed until 9 or 10 May, as some people have suggested, the by-election may well not occur at all but be lost in a general election.
The Government fear a bad result in Cardiff, but they fear even more the issues that will be raised in such a by-election campaign. They do not want to debate unemployment, but they know that in Wales, which has suffered devastating cuts in steel and other industries, they cannot escape facing the music on the jobless issue. Nor do the Government want to discuss their plans for privatising health care after the general election, but the Cardiff, North-West constituency contains the huge Heath hospital, so the Government cannot avoid that issue in a by-election.
Dr. Dafydd Huws, Plaid Cymru's candidate, has already made the Falklands an election issue. The last thing that the Government want is the Falklands factor rebounding on them in such a by-election as electors seriously start to question, for the first time, the wisdom and folly of last year's south Atlantic war in which so many service men, especially from Wales, died. That is the last thing that the Government want to discuss in the run-up to a general election.
Only yesterday, there was a significant demonstration outside the royal ordnance factory at Llanishen, which is in the heart of the Cardiff, North-West constituency. That factory hold 50 tonnes of uranium ready for the nuclear weapons which are so beloved by the Government. Nine people were arrested. As we have seen at Greenham common and elsewhere, the last thing that the Government want is an open debate on nuclear weapons policy. That is what they will have to do if they face the electorate in Cardiff, North-West in a by-election.
The Government are right—they dare not face those issues in a by-election at this critical point in the Government's stage managing of a general election year.

They dare not face the people on those issues. In a general election, they will subsume those issues into a gladiatorial presidential fight which they hope to win by default. Therefore, the people of Cardiff are to be deprived of a by-election and the opportunity to focus on the issues that worry them.
In a few minutes, a Government spokesman will., no doubt, try to move, through a doubtful constitutional device, a way in which to evade a by-election in Cardiff, North-West or, at least, to avoid one if a general election is to be held in June. The Government will try to stretch the by-election timetable to its limit in the hope that the by-election like the issues, can be subsumed in a general election. They are cowering like petrified sheep in the most distant corner of a far field.
The Government's touchiness about the by-election is a touchstone of their vulnerability in a general election when it eventually takes place. They will show today how prepared they are to face up to the issues as they are perceived in Cardiff and Wales.
The Cardiff, North-West by-election is where the Government will begin to meet their Waterloo. I beg to move that a warrant for the writ be issued without further prevarication or delay.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I fear that I have a dessicated contribution to make to this debate after the high drama of the speech of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). As he elaborated his arguments, I began to feel some anxiety for the Plaid Cymru candidate in Cardiff, North-West, who seems to have started on his expenses well in advance of any likely election.
I hope that it will be helpful if I make clear the Government's position on the matter which the hon. Gentleman raised in his motion. As the House knows, these are always issues of some complexity, with different considerations necessarily applying in each case. Nevertheless, although there are no fixed rules, there are conventions and guidelines in these matters which I believe, are generally accepted. In particular, the House will, I am sure, recall the conclusions which were reached by the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law in 1973 and which were set out in a letter dated 26 November that year from Mr. Speaker Lloyd to the then Prime Minister. The hon. Member for Merioneth referred to that.

Mr. Wigley: Caernarvon.

Mr. Biffen: I am sorry—Caernarvon. Even 50 per cent. accuracy is generous with Plaid Cymru.
The main conclusion of the conference was that the motion for a writ for a by-election should normally be moved within three months of a vacancy arising. In the present case, that period has not yet elapsed and will not do so for three more weeks. Furthermore, it was concluded specifically that it was
inexpedient for by-elections to be held … at the time of local elections in April/May.
This, of course, is entirely relevant to the present case, with local elections pending on 5 May.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: The right hon. Gentleman is walking for cover.

Mr. Biffen: I need not elaborate further on that point, as the reasons behind such a recommendation are obvious.


However, I should perhaps just mention that the recent boundary changes reinforce the case on this occasion for separating the by-election from the local elections. Even so, it is worth pointing out that the normal three-month guideline to which I have referred does not expire in the present case until some days after the date set for the local elections.
Finally, I refer to the further convention, which I think is generally recognised, that it should be the party whose Member formerly occupied the seat which should have priority in choosing the date of the by-election. I regret that the hon. Gentleman, by moving his motion today, has disregarded this customary practice, especially since, as I have explained, the Government are on this occasion wholly within the conventional practices, which have come to be generally accepted, in these matters.
May I say to the leader, and 50 per cent., of the Scottish National party that the moment it is accepted that a random majority of this House can determine when by-elections are held, we shall have crossed a Rubicon that we would do well to consider. Moreover, that would be strongly to the disadvantage of minority parties. The hon. Gentleman's action raises wider issues on which the House may well wish to ponder.
Meanwhile, however, I beg to move, as an amendment to the hon. Gentleman's motion, in line 1, after "That" to insert "on Tuesday 10 May".

Mr. John Silkin: Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson) asked for your advice, Mr. Speaker, about the conventions and etiquette of the House. Your advice was that, while conventions could not be 100 per cent. binding, the fact remains that, while conventions exist, they ought to be observed by the House. It is for that reason that I support the amendment of the Leader of the House.
I have great sympathy for much of what the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said, as the Leader of the House will know. I also believe that the Speaker's Conference is the proper place for the House to arrive at the decisions which govern things such as by-election rules. There might be a case for changing those rules and conventions, but the proper place to do so is the Speaker's Conference.
I am reinforced in that view, Mr. Speaker, by studying the letter that your precedessor—Mr. Speaker Lloyd—wrote to the then Prime Minister on 26 November 1973. He said that the view which was expressed in the letter was the unanimous view of every member of the Speaker's Conference. That Speaker's Conference included not only the Government and the Opposition but the minority parties, whose representatives were so vociferous a moment ago in supporting the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). Perhaps they should get a new leader—[AN HON. MEMBER: "They do not want you."] Their leader was, therefore, at the Speaker's Conference. The best advice for the House is to accept the amendment moved by the Leader of the House, and to consider a new Speaker's Conference to see whether the rules are correct and whether the convention should be preserved or changed.

Mr. Donald Coleman: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on whether the precipitate haste

of the Welsh National party in moving the writ today is concerned not with enfranchising the people of Cardiff, North-West but with the fact that its candidate in Cardiff has already jumped the gun and is incurring election expenses?

Mr. Silkin: I am not an expert on that. It must be left to the returning officer for that by-election.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call another hon. Member, I would remind the House that the time spent on this debate will come out of the time allocated for the debate on East Anglia.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. May I first declare a special interest in by-elections and, secondly, like you, Mr. Speaker, an interest as a past resident of Cardiff, North-West. I am unhappy that the Leader of the House proposes a 44-day run-up to the Cardiff by-election, which, if the dates most widely speculated about for a general election are correct, would produce the dissolution of the House before the date of that by-election.
I speak from new, recent but clear experience when I say that an electorate that does not have a Member of Parliament for a period suffers great loss because there is much work for Members of Parliament to do. The electors of Cardiff, North-West, as the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said a moment ago, should be represented on the important issues that the Government are, with increasing speed, rushing through the House so that the decks can be clear in case the House is dissolved after 5 May.
I hope that the House will respect the fact that the reason why the convention which as applied, and which should perhaps apply in normal circumstances, should not apply in the shadow of a general election—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Bring back Tatchell.

Mr. Hughes: —is that it would deprive the Cardiff electors of a chance to air and vote on their issues at a separate election earlier in May.

Mr. Wigley: May I respond — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The cries from Conservative Members show that they do not like what we have to say about Wales. However, I wish to respond to the amendment moved to my motion. Is there a precedent for such an amendment to be made to such a motion? The Leader of the House has moved an amendment that would provide for the warrant to have the writ moved on 10 May. That is the last possible day within the three-month convention. If the maximum period starting on 10 May were enacted, the by-election would be on Thursday 8 June. During that period is the Spring bank holiday, which is highlighted in the Speaker's report as being inconvenient for holding such elections. But even more serious is the likelihood that a general election will have been called in the intervening period, and the opportunity to highlight the problems of Cardiff will be lost.
I cannot accept the amendment, but I ask you to rule, Mr. Speaker, whether there is a precedent for it and whether it is in order.

Mr. Speaker: I rule at once— it is in order or I would not accepted it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 60.

Division No. 117]
[3.54pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Ancram, Michael
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Anderson, Donald
Fookes, Miss Janet


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Forrester, John


Banks, Robert
Foster, Derek


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fox, Marcus


Bendall, Vivian
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Best, Keith
Gardiner, Sir Edward


Bevan, David Gilroy
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Blackburn, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Blaker, Peter
Golding, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, Andrew
Gorst, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gow, Ian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brinton, Tim
Gray, Rt Hon Hamish


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Greenway, Harry


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grieve, Percy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grist, Ian


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Grylls, Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gummer, John Selwyn


Buck, Antony
Hamilton, Hon A.


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, John


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan


Churchill, W. S.
Hastings, Stephen


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hawksley, Warren


Cockeram, Eric
Hayhoe, Barney


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Haynes, Frank


Coleman, Donald
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Cope, John
Heddle, John


Cormack, Patrick
Henderson, Barry


Costain, Sir Albert
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cowans, Harry
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cranborne, Viscount
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Critchley, Julian
Hordern, Peter


Crouch, David
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Crowther, Stan
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Dewar, Donald
Hunt, David (Wirral).


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dormand, Jack
Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman


Dorrell, Stephen
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Dover, Denshore
Jessel, Toby


Duffy, A. E. P.
John, Brynmor


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Durant, Tony
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Eggar, Tim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


English, Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Evans, John (Newton)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Eyre, Reginald
Knight, Mrs Jill


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Knox, David


Fell, Sir Anthony
Lamont, Norman


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lang, Ian





Latham, Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Lawrence, Ivan
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rathbone, Tim


Leadbitter, Ted
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Lee, John
Renton, Tim


Leighton, Ronald
Rhodes James, Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'Ioo)
Robertson, George


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rossi, Hugh


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rost, Peter


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Royle, Sir Anthony


McCrindle, Robert
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Macfarlane, Neil
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


MacGregor, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Shepherd, Richard


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Short, Mrs Renée


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


McQuarrie, Albert
Sims, Roger


Madel, David
Skeet, T, H. H.


Major, John
Smith, Sir Dudley


Marland, Paul
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marlow, Antony
Speed, Keith


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Speller, Tony


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Sproat, Iain


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Squire, Robin


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stanley, John


Mawby, Ray
Steen, Anthony


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stevens, Martin


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Mayhew, Patrick
Stokes, John


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stradling Thomas, J


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moate, Roger
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Donald


Montgomery, Fergus
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Moore, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Tinn, James


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Trippier, David


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Morton, George
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Viggers, Peter


Mudd, David
Waddington, David


Murphy, Christopher
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Neale, Gerrard
Wakeham, John


Needham, Richard
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nelson, Anthony
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Neubert, Michael
Walker, B. (Perth)


Newton, Tony
Watson, John


Normanton, Tom
Weetch, Ken


O'Brien, Oswald (Darlington)
Wells, Bowen


O'Halloran, Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Onslow, Cranley
Wheeler, John


Osborn, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Whitney, Raymond


Palmer, Arthur
Wickenden, Keith


Park, George
Wiggin, Jerry


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Wilkinson, John


Parris, Matthew
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Pawsey, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Percival, Sir Ian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Pollock, Alexander
Younger, Rt Hon George


Porter, Barry



Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prior, Rt Hon James
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Proctor, K. Harvey
Mr. Carol Mather.






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Mitchell, R, C. (Soton Itchen)


Alton, David
Ogden, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Parry, Robert


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Pavitt, Laurie


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Penhaligon, David


Bradley, Tom
Pitt, William Henry


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Richardson, Jo


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Canavan, Dennis
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cartwright, John
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Cryer, Bob
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Sandelson, Neville


Dixon, Donald
Skinner, Dennis


Dubs, Alfred
Soley, Clive


Eastham, Ken
Stallard, A. W.


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Field, Frank
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Flannery, Martin
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Freud, Clement
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Hardy, Peter
Watkins, David


Home Robertson, John
Welsh, Michael


Homewood, William
White, Frank R.


Hooley, Frank
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Hoyle, Douglas
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)
Wright, Sheila


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Young, David (Bolton E)


Litherland, Robert



Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Tellers for the Noes:


McNally, Thomas
Mr. Dafydd Wigley and


McTaggart, Robert
Mr. Donald Stewart.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

BILL PRESENTED

LEASEHOLD FLATS REFORM

Mr. John Fraser, supported by Mr. John Tilley, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. John Wheeler, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Ken Weetch, and Mr. Clinton Davis, presented a Bill to enable tenants of flats held on long leases to acquire an extended lease; to establish a Leasehold Flats Commission; to imply certain covenants in long leases of flats; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 April and to be printed. — [Bill 128.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the statutory instruments.

Mr. George Cunningham: Object.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, I shall put the Questions separately.

Ordered,
That the draft Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Grants (Extension of Period) Order 1983 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. — [Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Ordered,
That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1983 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Archie Hanmilton.]

Ordered,
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) (Long-term Rates) Amendment Regulations 1983 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. — [Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Concessionary Television Licences for Old Age Pensioners

Mr. Allen McKay: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for concessionary television licences for old age pensioners.
I very much regret the delay caused by the attitude of the alliance, which could delay what could be a very important Bill for about 9 million pensioners.
On 26 October 1982, I asked leave of the House to bring in a Bill to provide for concessionary television licences for old-age pensioners, on which the House divided, and which was accepted by the House by 187 votes to nil. Lack of parliamentary time prevented the Bill from going any further. I ask again that leave be given to bring in a similar Bill in order to reinforce the will of the House as indicated by that majority. It is time that the Government accepted the necessity of granting a concessionary television licence to all old-age pensioners. At the same time, this would give a chance for us to examine the possibility of extending the concession still further to cover disabled, handicapped and other disadvantaged groups.
As the House knows, the Wireless Telegraphy (Broadcast Licence Charges and Exemption) Regulations 1970, as extended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) when he was Home Secretary, provided a welcome relief from this licence burden for about half a million senior citizens, for whom television is a necessity of life. For them, particularly if they are in rural areas, television provides entertainment, companionship and a sense of security and keeps them informed of local and national happenings, because many of them do not have sufficient income to buy newspapers.
The existing scheme of concessionary television licences is unfair to the majority of old people, particularly those in isolated places and those isolated within the community. It is causing animosity and bitterness among pensioners themselves.
We need an equitable system of concessionary licensing for all persons of pension age, irrespective of the type of dwelling in which they live. The present scheme does not take account of the fact that a large number of people who, by reason of their accommodation only, do not come within the scheme, are living in circumstances that are little different from those of people who are eligible under the scheme. Therefore we have half a million people who receive the 5p licence and 4·5 million households which do not. Some are in public sector accommodation, but most are in privately owned or private rented accommodation. Clearly, that is a situation which cannot be tolerated.
This has been a matter of great concern for years to many right hon. and hon. Members and it is a problem which is of concern to many old-age pensioners' organisations. I am sure that, like me, many hon. Members receive every week letters from constituents complaining about the inequality of the system.
Since I last presented a Bill on concessionary licences, two more things have occurred that make it even more essential that the situation should be discussed.
On 23 February 1983, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in answer to a written question announced—and I believe this was under pressure not only from the Bill but from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—that he had concluded that
it is particularly anomalous that physically disabled and mentally disordered residents of homes run by local authorities or voluntary or private organisations should receive different treatment from old persons resident in similar homes provided for under the same legislation … Similarly, I intend that physically disabled and mentally disordered people resident in those categories of sheltered housing in which old persons at present receive the concession should also benefit."—[Official Report, 23 February 1983; Vol. 37, c. 439.]
In addition to that, Sheffield metropolitan council, by exploiting a loophole within the law, will provide concessionary television licences to a further 8,000 people. I think that the council deserves great credit for that, as do other councils which are taking on their shoulders something that the Government should take on theirs. Sheffield is to employ wardens to make four visits a year to the pensioners, who will then qualify for the concessionary licences.
I shall not waste the House's time by describing yet again all the other anomalies that arise. To extend the present scheme in addition to protecting existing recipients would cost about £250 million. That sum could be raised by increasing VAT by 0·4 per cent. or the basic rate of income tax by one third of 1p. If the House really wants to get rid of the anomalies, while we are talking about abolishing the road fund tax and increasing the price of petrol we could get rid of television licensing altogether at a cost of £670 million—equivalent to a 1 per cent. increase in VAT or a 0·7 per cent. increase in income tax.
There is no doubt that the right approach would be to create and sustain adequate total pensions, supplementary benefit and other income maintenance. The House has expressed the wish many times that people should be able to make their own choices. Until that happy day comes, however, we need a fair and equitable system of concessions. I am pleased that the Labour party has committed itself to phasing out television licence charges to pensioners and other beneficiaries within the lifetime of the next Labour Government. My Bill, however, provides the present Government with an opportunity to examine all the anomalies, to consider means of financing and to bring in a new and fairer scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse, Mr. Edwin Wainwright, Mr. Alec Woodall, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. Michael Welsh, Dr. Edmund Marshall, Mr. Derek Foster, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Bob Cryer.

CONCESSIONARY TELEVISION LICENCES FOR OLD AGE PENSIONERS

Mr. Allen McKay accordingly presented a Bill to provide for concessionary television licences for old age pensioners: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 May and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

Orders of the Day — 10TH ALLOTTED DAY

East Anglia

Mr. Ken Weetch: I beg to move,
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for pursuing policies that have had a disastrous effect on the economic and social fabric of East Anglia, bringing about increased unemployment, weakened industry, deteriorating transport services and rural decline; notes that as a result of Government and EEC support farmers have hit the jackpot, but this has not been shared by agricultural workers; and calls upon the Government to abandon these policies that effect such damage upon the prosperity of the region.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I remind the House that we are very late in starting this abbreviated debate. I hope that all who are fortunate enough to be called will bear in mind the fact that others wish to speak.

Mr. Weetch: The last debate on East Anglia on the Floor of the House was a long time ago. It will not take me long to tell the House exactly how much political discussion we have had on the subject over the years. In February 1953 there was a debate on flooding on the east coast. In November 1964 and January 1969 there were two half-hour debates on the Adjournment. In January 1976, there was a valuable debate in East Anglian regional strategy in which I took part, but that debate took place in a regional Committee upstairs. According to my researches, this is the first set-piece debate on the economic and social problems of East Anglia to take place since the war. My researches go back no further than 1945. I say that to emphasise that this is a rare occasion.
I shall argue broadly that East Anglia has long been neglected. First, I make the preliminary and non-partisan point that there has also been parliamentary neglect. On this topic, the House is beset with other difficulties. First, it is misleading to suggest that any uniformity attaches to the term "East Anglia". The area is substantially varied in geography, economic resources and human psychology. In my experience, there are as many definitions of East Anglia as there are people, but so long as we have a wide-ranging debate I shall have no objection.
Secondly, when the Government came to office in 1979, the East Anglian planning council was liquidated. Since then, it has been increasingly difficult to give specialist assessment to East Anglia as a region. This makes it far more difficult to obtain a regional view so that formal action can be taken on identifiable problems.
The debate takes place at an appropriate time. Whatever the time scale involved, the electorate will shortly have the chance to pass judgment on the Government's performance. This debate is an appropriate occasion to place on record the fact that the Government's performance in East Anglia has been woefully inadequate. Their policies in East Anglia have been as incredible as in other parts of the country. In social and economic terms, they have a dismal record of worsening unemployment, industrial closures, business bankruptcies, short-time

working and diminishing job opportunities. In social terms there has been continued rural decline in many parts of the region, with deteriorating transport and increasing rural isolation, the latter often accentuated by the closing of post offices, garages and local schools.
I shall take Mr. Speaker's advice and try to be short and sharp so that as many Members as possible can speak in the debate. I wish to examine the main components of the decline to which I have referred.
On unemployment, I am not of the school of thought that believes that statistics speak for themselves, but, faced with the dismal facts that are readily available in Government publications and even more readily available to the senses of constituency Members in the region, I can only say that in the East Anglian context the record is deplorable. The raw material is as follows. My statistics have their source in Department of Employment figures for the East Anglian planning area covering Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. In June 1979, the number of people wholly unemployed was 30,835 or 4·2 per cent. of the working population. By February 1983, the number had risen to 82,570 or almost 12 per cent. of the working population—an increase of some 168 per cent. In a sense, even that figure is too flattering, as the latest figure is lower due to the change in the method of computation introduced in November 1982. It should be remembered, too, that the figure for June 1979 showed a 17 per cent. decrease on the previous month's total and that the numbers had been declining for some months previously. In other words, in East Anglia the Government inherited a position of falling unemployment in the spring of 1979. Their policies have ensured, however, that the situation has deteriorated sharply since then.
The figures are too flattering for another reason. In East Anglia, 60 per cent. of the work force is employed in the service industries which are susceptible to less decline than manufacturing industry, so it is more by luck than judgment that the figures are as good as they are.
The other chief component of this dismal story has been industrial decline and accelerating manufacturing weakness. While in East Anglia in many rural areas there has been a continued slow employment haemorrhage, the industrial towns have taken hammer blows. They have been besieged by widespread job losses and redundancies and beset by industrial closures and company liquidations that have left a trail of damage. These events were described by the chairman of the eastern region of the Confederation of British Industry recently as traumatic in an area unused to the twists and turns of industrial misfortune.
I do not intend to use this speech to grind a constituency axe. I shall try to keep my remarks to East Anglia as a whole because that is my brief, but the examples I shall give, because they are the ones I know best, are from my constituency, which is a major industrial area in East Anglia. The textile industry in Ipswich, both at the cheap and the expensive ends, has been totally wiped out. Heavy and light engineering, including two jewels in the engineering crown, Ransomes and Rapier and Ransomes, Sims and Jefferies, as well as Cranes, have been hit by short time and redundancies. Other firms, such as Fisons and Harris FMC, have had the same experience. These firms provide the staple employment in the town.
Throughout the four years about which we are talking all of them have suffered from a four-pronged economic scourge: first, a chronic weakness in demand; secondly,


high interest rates; thirdly, for a considerable period an uncompetitive exchange rate; and fourthly and not least, unrestricted foreign competition at home while they faced restrictions in foreign markets. In the limited time at my disposal I cannot analyse each, but while the level of economic activity has been affected by the worst business recession for many years the Government have merely wrung their hands in despair instead of promoting economic activity to counter the worst of the cyclical depression.
The Government amendment speaks of restoring "competitiveness to the economy". One firm, Rolle Celestion, a competitive firm in excellent shape, has been forced into redundancies and short time by a sterling exchange rate that was artificially overvalued. At one period, the worst in its fortunes, it saw its competitive position against the Japanese drift by 20 per cent. through no fault of its own.
Many sections of industry are very sore about how in foreign trade Britain plays the game while others, particularly the Japanese, do not. As a recent example, Cranes of Ipswich, which manufactures high quality valves and fittings and is one of the best firms in the business, showed its catalogue to a manager in Japan. He put it down and said, "We make them ourselves." The conclusion to be drawn from that is that even if we had been giving the goods away we could not have exported them because the Japanese made similar products. In that sort of situation, price and quality competition become a mockery. The Government should see that something is done. I am told by management all around East Anglia that in foreign trade Britian is a soft touch.
As for the needs of East Anglia, while there has been some Government activity in terms of help through a number of bodies—the Development Commission, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas and other bits and pieces—East Anglia does not qualify for regional assistance. In turn, therefore, severe difficulties stand in the way of seeking European Community assistance. Yet we have unemployment black spots that are well above the national average. Paradoxically, too, the pattern of regional assistance in the United Kingdom means that East Anglia, which is the gateway to Europe and whose trade flows increasingly through its ports, qualifies for little Community aid, while ports on the west coast can benefit from European money.

Mr. Antony Buck: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that we are the gateway to Europe? If policies advocated by his party were pursued, the picture, which is not entirely happy, would be much worse. I hope he will touch on some of the good trends in East Anglia, such as Willis Faber moving into his constituency and Trebor into mine. It is not a wholly black picture. He will give a distorted picture to the country if he does not emphasise the good side as well as the adverse features.

Mr. Weetch: I hope to touch on the positive aspects and to get the support of many right hon. and hon. Members on the Conserative Benches, because many of the points I am making have been made by them in the newspapers over the years. If they are trying to put a gloss on the problems, I am sorry to say that the whole thing will not wash.
Let me answer the point about the European Community, which I take seriously. As hon. Members

know, in the referendum in 1975 I was one of the joint presidents, together with the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), of the East Anglian section of "Get Britain Out". If there were another referendum I would take the same view. Hon. Members will notice that I was in good company on that occasion in political terms. Trade with Europe would have expanded anyway, irrespective of membership of the European Community. I have never believed that the European Community, in terms of its economic effect on Britain, has had much fundamental influence on us.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: rose—

Mr. Weetch: I will not give way. This is such a short debate that I must get on as quickly as I can. I hope that the points to come will be less controversial.
While the Secretary of State for the Environment is still relatively fresh at his new brief, I hope he will find the time to end the injustices of the effect of the block grant system on East Anglia. Others with a better head for the labyrinthine mysteries will make the point better than I can. I put it simply. East Anglian local authorities have a history of low spending—I am advised that currently it is 28 per cent. below the national average—yet under the new framework of grant arrangements Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire are liable to penalties far harsher in their implications than for the areas which over the years have been much higher spenders.
I underline again that this is an area without regional assistance, where local authority spending has to bear practically the whole brunt of the fight against the economic recession. This is at a time when, because of a rising population in many parts of the region, it has public expenditure needs in education and the social services related to increasing rather than decreasing numbers.
In the last minute of my speech—I have tried to be as brief as I can—I welcome the announcement, which I read in the East Anglian Daily Times before I came into the debate, of the decided route for the western section of the Ipswich bypass. The hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) asked me to emphasise some positive aspects. That is one which I welcome very much because, together with many other hon. Members, I have been agitating for it for a long time.
East Anglia is of strategic importance to trade with Europe and needs a sound infrastructure of roads. The East Anglian countryside will take the pounding from heavy vehicles from the ports when any trade expansion takes place. In the north of the East Anglian region, roads such as the A47, All and A17 should be brought up to higher standards by increased public expenditure and investment. My latest advice—here I stand to be corrected—is that the A1-M1 link is still designated as single carriageway for most of its length. I hope that will be altered if it is so. The A1-M1 is critically important to East Anglia to make the connection between the industrial areas of the midlands and The Haven and east coast ports.
One of the coldest winds in Great Britain is that which blows across the Fens. East Anglia has been left to fight the teeth of the economic wind almost entirely alone. That injustice needs to be remedied.
The people of East Anglia are industrious and responsible and not given to belligerent demonstrations or shows of indignation in public places. Industrial relations are among the best in Great Britain. It is an area of industry


and responsibility. Unfortunately, the people are beginning to learn the oldest lesson of all, which is that the meek do not inherit the earth; they inherit the rough end of the stick.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
recognises that the prosperity of East Anglia depends on continued success in the Government's policies to keep down inflation and restore competitiveness to the economy, on the growth and development of small businesses upon whom many Government measures are concentrated, and on the further development of its highly productive agriculture within the Common Agricultural Policy; and notes that in every respect the Labour Party's present policies would have a disastrous effect upon the region's considerable potential.
As I listened to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) I became more and more astonished at the Opposition's sheer effrontery and the terms of their motion when, as I shall demonstrate, every one of Labour's key policies would work substantially to the detriment of East Anglia. The emptiness of his speech was paralleled only by the emptiness of the Opposition Benches. I was wondering why they chose this subject. I am tempted to say that I discovered why the other day when I read a headline in the Eastern Daily Press which stated:
Norwich, North—Tories would have won.
The newspaper gives the results of a survey that demonstrates that under the new boundaries the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) would have lost in 1979 and would need a 7·1 per cent. swing to Labour at the coming election to win the seat. He is desperate and his desperation shows through in the motion.
I noticed that the hon. Member for Ipswich did not refer to his party's official policies in "The New Hope for Britain". I am not surprised, because I have just been reading it from cover to cover. I have never read anything so full of poor analysis, wrong-headed thinking and an accumulation of policy ideas which would, in their totality, amount to a lunatic course of action for Great Britain and would affect East Anglia desperately. I recommend others to read the document at a single reading to obtain the full flavour and to realise what a fool's paradise it is. It is no wonder that it has been dubbed from more than one quarter not "The New Hope for Britain" but "No hope for Britain". Fortunately, the Labour party will not have the chance to implement it.
I want to give the background as East Anglia went to the polls last time. What were the people thinking and what were their main worries? Great Britain had been top of the inflation league year after year under the Labour Government. They were clobbering business competitiveness and seriously affecting all the retired people who had come to East Anglia. People were worried about the dominance of militant union leaders and shop stewards. The topic discussed most during the winter before the election and during the election was the winter of industrial discontent.
I remember well what so many sensible, and — I agree with the hon. Member for Ipswich—realistic, fair-minded people of East Anglia were saying about the road haulage dispute and the way in which imported militants

not wanted in the region were coming in to affect their small businesses. People were worrying about the burden of public borrowing, the huge overseas debt that the Government had built up, the inefficiency of too many parts of British industry and the massive subsidies to outdated industries and plants — I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that was occurring in other parts of the country—instead of putting more into the new industries and technologies. The people worried about the excessive levels of assistance poured into other regions. The hon. Gentleman has an incredible cheek to attack the Government for not introducing regional assistance for East Anglia when it never existed under his Government and when we have cut the numbers of assisted parts of the country from 44 per cent. to 27 per cent., which directly reduces unfair competition from elsewhere. They were worrying about the failure to concentrate on law and order, to improve police numbers, pay and morale and to strengthen penalties. They were worrying about the updating of Great Britain's nuclear defences. These were issues that people were talking to me about at the last election and the results were obvious in the polls. We need only look at the number of Labour Back Benchers from East Anglia to see what East Anglia's verdict was.
We are acting or have acted on these issues while—the hon. Gentleman had the fairness to refer to this—there is a deep worldwide recession. We are making considerable progress on all these fronts, and I am in no doubt what the East Anglian people will say when the verdict comes next time.
I shall deal with the issues in the Opposition motion. I start with agriculture. It is the most astonishing terminology. It contrasts farmers hitting the jackpot—I believe that I can tell where that phrase came from—with rural decline. Do not the Opposition see the connection between agricultural success and the increase in resources that agriculture brings to East Anglia and the benefits that brings to our rural areas by preventing the rural decline about which he talked? Do they not see that it is that which brings higher living standards to so many of our rural areas?
I wish to underline the importance of agriculture to East Anglia. The hon. Gentleman did not refer to it. East Anglia produces 48 per cent. of the United Kingdom wheat, 31 per cent. of our barley, 40 per cent. of our potatoes, 72 per cent. of our sugar beet, 60 per cent. of our field vegetables and 32 per cent. of our pig production. It is not just that, however; it is the impact of successful agriculture on our rural areas, the agricultural merchants, the small builders—who are currently telling me that they have never been busier because of the improvement in our community as a result of successful agriculture during the past year—car dealers and retailers. All those firms and the people that they employ benefit from growth and success in agriculture. That is how one deals with the problem of rural areas. With the exception of pig production, which is a problem that I do not have time to deal with and which is not my ministerial responsibility, so perhaps I had better not, people are feeling that they are busier, on the go and doing well.
Successful agriculture has a major impact on the agricultural machinery industry which, as we all know, is a difficult industry at present world wide. I have Howard Rotavators in a small town in my constituency. The combination of the improvement in agriculture and the increased investment that that will bring domestically,


plus the company's overseas efforts and the way in which it has gone for new products and technology—which is vital to its Paraplow—will ensure that employment will remain in Harleston because of the firm's success. It all depends on what the Opposition call "farmers hitting the jackpot". It is unbelievable that they do not understand the effect of all that on rural areas.
Farming incomes fell sharply in real terms for most of the 1970s. They have substantially revived this year only, with all the benefits that I have described. That is what the Opposition call "farmers hitting the jackpot". Farm workers' earnings have moved steadily upwards in real terms since 1977. They will not continue to do that unless we have successful agriculture. The matter goes further than that. From the national point of view, our success in agriculture — I am going to rub the noses of the Opposition in their remark "farmers hitting the jackpot" —is a major national success and I only wish that all other industries had done the same. Agriculture has an excellent record of improved efficiency, technical innovation, high investment and good industrial relations.
Since 1970, Great Britain's self-sufficiency in indigenous foods has increased from 60 per cent. to 76 per cent. We are now 62 per cent. self-sufficient overall. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the balance of payments, he should approve of that.
The increase in self-sufficiency since 1978 is worth about £1¼ billion a year to the balance of payments. It is greatly to its credit that British agriculture has continued to break records in production and productivity. Increases in food prices have been consistently below the increases in prices in general as a result. Good labour relations have promoted the development of new skills, and the advent of new technology is welcomed, not resisted. It is for those reasons, as well as because of its importance to East Anglia, that it is in our interests to encourage and not to destroy British agriculture. British agriculture is a great national asset, and we should be proud that we have so much of it in East Anglia. We must avoid policies that would damage the substantial contribution that it makes to our national economy.
So what would the Labour party do? Let us look at the plan that the hon. Gentleman assidously refrained from mentioning. Labour would suck agriculture dry through higher rates and taxes. That would mean higher food prices for the very people—those on low earnings and social security—whom it professes to help. Labour intends to end derating of agricultural land. It will introduce a wealth tax, reverse most of the concessions on capital transfer tax to help businesses and agriculture, and withdraw from the European Community. A recent farmers' survey shows —although we all knew it—that the vast majority of farmers feel that withdrawal from the EC would be very much against Britain's agricultural interests.
About the only matter on which I agree with the Social Democratic party is the reference in its amendment to the complete failure of the official Opposition to understand the impact of what they would do to agriculture and therefore to East Anglia. However, the sole contribution of the SDP is that it is likely to run the risk of the Labour party coming to power. The Labour party's policy on agriculture would severely blight rural areas by substantially reducing the income that is self-generated by our main own local industry.
I recently had the pleasure of handing over the keys of the 650th council house that was sold in south Norfolk.

This is one way to increase the individual family's assets, independence, security, and stake in the community in rural areas. What does the Labour party do? It says that it will repeal the legislation, and in Norwich it has done everything possible to blight the policy. In fact, in East Anglia, between April 1979 and 31 December 1982, 14,613 council house sales took place, and that is good news for the people there. I am delighted that as a result of the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in Norwich, there are now 1,148 families in Norwich who are enjoying the benefit of their own homes, which they otherwise would not have done.
The next subject is transport. Ever since I have been a Member of Parliament for East Anglia, the decline in bus services has been a feature of rural areas. It is nonsense for the Opposition to suggest that it has happened only since 1979. It is not hard to see why it has happened. The combination of the increase in car ownership—we all know that we have one of the highest proportions of car ownership in the country—and the ever-increasing cost to the public purse of subsidising the big national, monolithic bus services, with their spiralling costs over the 1970s to meet the reduced demand as a result, has severely hit rural bus services. There must be a limit to the extent to which the taxpayer and ratepayer can go on footing the bill. In Norfolk last year, it was £500,000, and this year it will approach £700,000. I believe that the answer will increasingly lie — the hon. Member for Ipswich will probably agree — in more flexible and lower cost services of small private operators, community bus services, and car sharing. I hope that our county councils will adopt that more imaginative approach of dealing with the admittedly serious problems of those who do not have cars.
I should have thought that the motion would welcome the good news for East Anglia. First, there is the electrification of the Colchester to Norwich line, coining in 1987. Secondly, there are the substantial improvements now taking place in the main trunk road programme. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that East Anglia was left behind in earlier years. I know that when he was parliamentary private secretary in the Department of Transport he did much to help East Anglia. However, things are now moving, and under this Government there is a real drive forward to catch up.
I do not have time to list the many road improvements that are taking place. I just mention briefly the M11 between London and Cambridge, which is now complete, and the M25/A11 link which is to be opened on Friday. The A12 is now dual carriageway as far as Ipswich, except for Chelmsford, where work will start on a bypass next year. I find that I get home to Norfolk much more quickly these days as a result of the improvements that are coming through. Many other improvements are now taking place, or are planned and in the pipeline, for the A47, the A 11 and the A17. All this is of great importance to East Anglia. It is now all happening, and great progress is being made.
I have time to mention only one of the social services, and that is the Health Service. It is worth pointing out that East Anglia received the highest rate of revenue growth of any region in the country in 1982–83 and 1983–84, providing for growth in our health services of 2·6 per cent. and 2·;9 per cent. respectively. When the devastating effect of Labour's economic policy comes through—if it ever happens—growth of that nature will not continue.
I turn now to the crux of this debate—employment, industry and commerce. We can all throw around figures, and we all know that unemployment has been rising not only in this country but throughout the world as a result of the deep recession. However, it is interesting to consider the number of people in employment in East Anglia. In March 1979, the figure was 685,000. The latest figures of people in employment for September of last year —they are higher now—was 666,000. That means that there has been a decline in the actual number of people in employment of less than 3 per cent., in the fiercest recession worldwide that has taken place for several decades. That shows how well East Anglia has weathered the storm.
Certainly, we have done better than any other region. Why? The answer lies first with small businesses. The East Anglian economy depends crucially on small businesses and the self-employed. I guess that, apart from agriculture — which, in any case, comprises small businesses and the self-employed—banks, large stores and a few large companies, the vast bulk of employment in the region is provided by small businesses and the self-employed. This Government, as the amendment points out, have concentrated on a battery of changes to help the self-employed, to introduce new schemes, give tax incentives, remove the burden of legislation, and so on. We have introduced more than 100 measures, to assist small firms, and we are already seeing examples of the success of that programme. Small businesses are starting to employ more people and are achieving a success in export markets that often astounds me. Firms are establishing substantial growth because they have got their products and services right and because they have good industrial relations. They work day and night to meet their customers' requirements. After all, the customers provide jobs, not the Government. Firms are taking advantage of our measures.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned firms in his constituency. Perhaps he will forgive me if I mention a few firms in mine. Zenotron of Diss, in high technology, is doubling its work force from 40 to 80. It is doing extremely well in a highly competitive market. There is also PJM Engineering, a company in a small village, which is now employing over 20, compared with only a handful a year or two ago. That company has taken advantage of two of the schemes that the Government have introduced, and as a result it has now obtained major orders at Heathrow and Gatwick airports. Yet it is only a small engineering firm in Garboldisham. That shows what can be done by small businesses, with encouragement from the Government.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: No, I shall not give way.
I know, too, that small industrial units are springing up all over the place in East Anglia. I have had the pleasure of visiting many of them, and I shall open two more in the next few weeks. They are the result of encouragement from COSIRA, and because private developers are coming into the business as a result of the tax incentives that we have given.
Because of the critical importance of small businesses and the self-employed to East Anglia, I looked for a mention of them in Labour's new plan. There is not a

word. There is an endless succession of ideas for spending small businesses' money, with new Whitehall controls, new bodies for state investment, new interferences in their operations, and new burdens to heap upon them, but there is not a word about incentives or any of the steps that we have taken. Why? Because Labour does not understand them or sympathise with their aspirations. That is how Labour would help small businesses in East Anglia.
I come now to technology. I have just come from the Numerical Engineering Society's exhibition at Wembley. The message that I was given, which has often been stated in the House, was that in terms of high technology—the advanced technology which was demonstrated there —Britain was slow to adopt and adapt even two years ago, when the previous exhibition was held. That is because under the Labour Government companies throughout the country were suffering from a lack of concentration on the need to get their products and processes up to date and to introduce new technology into their businesses because of their preoccupation with restrictive work practices. The fudging or delaying decisions which were so often taken by the Labour Government prevented management from doing the type of managing it would have wished and sustained the resistance to change that was implicitly encouraged by the Labour Government. As a result, Britain lost years. It is now making big strides forward in developing new technologies and applying them in this country. This Government, unlike their predecessors, have given heavy support to the introduction of new technologies and to increasing awareness of them.
East Anglia is benefiting. Cambridge has one of the biggest concentrations of emerging electronics companies in western Europe and a high take-up of support for innovation schemes. I discovered today that management in those companies has its tails up and its employees are responding enthusiastically. I do not believe that that would have happened under Labour. The third reason why East Anglia does relatively well—here I agree with the hon. Member for Ipswich—is to do with the quality of its people. They know that their success depends on their responding to what customers want and not what Governments direct them to do. I ask the hon. Member for Ipswich to ask those people, especially the small businesses in East Anglia, what they think of the plans of the Labour party. I can tell him.
Looking through the document "The New Hope for Britain" I see a veritable encyclopedia of new spending plans, all of which are a burden on industry. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has costed them at about £30 billion to £40 billion. That would have a colossal effect on inflation and interest rates, and would impose heavy new burdens on businesses throughout East Anglia. The Labour document proposes a catalogue of new Government bodies, directing this, that and the other, as though a few politicians or civil servants —I am not denigrating either—can run small businesses throughout the country. They cannot. It is as though a few politicians or civil servants know best as to how to win a customer. All this imposes costs that would have to be met and would have a heavy impact on employment. It is significant and interesting to note that to finance such schemes successive Labour Governments have always put taxes on jobs, and it has been for their Conservative successors to reduce and remove them. The report shows the prospective repeal of our industrial relations


legislation, which would lead the country straight back to the winters of discontent that caused so much agony in East Anglia. The document says:
we will steer new industry and jobs to the regions and the inner cities.
East Anglia, under the Labour Government, did not benefit from regional assistance. Since East Anglia's level of unemployment is below the national average, it is right that regional policy should be heavily concentrated on the areas of greatest need and especially concentrated in the way in which the Conservative Government has done it. Does the hon. Member for Ipswich believe any of this steering of new industry and jobs would bring them to East Anglia? They would be steered—I have used the word "steered"—elsewhere. This Government have removed the machinery for "steering". Steering is precisely what East Anglia does not want.
I come to the policy of withdrawal from the Common Market. Everyone in East Anglia recognises that one of the other great merits of East Anglia is that it is ideally placed to benefit from membership of the Common Market, and is so doing. Do the Opposition believe that Sanyo would have come to Lowestoft to provide new jobs and new technology in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) if Britain were withdrawing from the Common Market? Do they believe that all this investment would be going on in East Anglia if Britain were removing itself from that main market? Do they believe that the ports of Felixstowe, Lowestoft and Yarmouth would have a big future if Britain were no longer in the Community and suffered from the tariffs and trade barriers that would arise as a result? Do they not recognise that, although it would be very serious in its implications for the country, it would severely hit the growth prospects of East Anglia?
Figures show that recovery is under way and Britain is well in front in leading that recovery. The important point is that the recovery is not based on heavy Government borrowing, artificial reflation and putting off dealing with Britain's real problems. The recovery is based on solid progress in achieving competitiveness, in getting the climate right for enterprise and in concentrating the Government's role where it should be concentrated.
When talking to industrial business men, large or small,in East Anglia or elsewhere, the most significant factor they see as important for their businesses is the return of a Conservative Government. The recent surveys of the Confederation of British Industry, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the small business surveys, such as that of the Association of Independent Businesses, all point to real improvements in the position. The latest survey from the Norwich and Norfolk Chamber of Commerce, which is well based, said:
Businessmen in Norfolk start 1983 with considerably more confidence than they were showing last October. This is one of the encouraging facts to emerge from the latest Economic Survey. Nearly half the firms replying expect output to increase during the coming quarter, while only eight per cent. expect a decline.
I am told that the latest survey shows that that confidence is continuing.
East Anglia's strength lies in the qualities, skills and attitudes of its people. They are responding enthusiastically to the lead that the Prime Minister and the Government are giving to changing Britain's attitudes. That strength rests in the variety and multitude of small businesses and

the self-employed who value their independence and the policy of non-interference from Government planners. It lies in its agriculture and its closeness to Europe.
I care deeply about my region. I do not want to see its future prosperity, progress and success destroyed by the type of policies put forward in Labour's plan. I therefore ask the House to reject the motion and support the Government amendment.

Mr. Clement Freud: I welcome this debate. I am grateful to the official Opposition for initiating it, even though I am bemused by their referring to East Anglia as "the gateway to Europe", when they are trying to get out of Europe. It is like bemoaning the breakdown of a lift when one is knocking down the upper floors of a building. Much will be said by East Anglia constituency Members about their regions. I wish to talk specifically about Cambridge and the Isle of Ely.
Regional studies have shown that the area is one of population growth; of constant growth. Such an area has more children, pensioners and people with cars. The Government do not seem to realise that. We need more schools. We do not wish our schools to be closed down. We need more hospitals. We do not wish our hospitals to be closed and replaced by huge and impersonal hospitals at some future date somewhere. Above all we need more jobs. Growth in East Anglia, specifically in Cambridge, is not recognised. The Government allocate targets on past performance and not on actual numbers. That is the nub. The Minister and the hon Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) spoke of the A 1-M1 link, plans for which at the moment appear to be single carriageway. The reason they come to the conclusion that: the road should be a single carriageway is that they have taken the historic national average, and have not examined the current figures or future requirements. I appreciate that the Government have worked hard on the A1 -M1 link, as have all hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Huntingdom (Mr. Major) has consistently campaigned for it, but I am sure that he would be unhappy about what is likely to happen to this link when it is built. Will the Government be more farsighted in this matter? I know the Government's policy is to encourage that which they consider dynamic. There is not a lot of what the Prime Minister would call "dynamism" in East Anglia. I am talking about rural East Anglia. I agree that there are cities that are doing well. There is no "dynamism" in the Isle of Ely. My constituency needs support for agriculture and industry and it needs support just as much because there is no centre of academic or industrial excellence there. There are many hard-working people who need support and a fair deal from the Government.
When Peterborough was designated a new town the county was promised that no undue burden would be imposed on the rest of the county. Cambridgeshire is owed about £6 million in burden payments. I ask the Minister whether the county might have that £6 million soon.
Peterborough is a thriving new town. The Government do not seem to realise the financial implications for the surrounding community of keeping a thriving new town running. My county is trying to cope with the provision of a wide range of services on insufficient money, for it comes out of the rate support grant equation very badly.
One senses a general lack of confidence in the future of Fen farming, with its heavy reliance on the potato crop and its high cost structure. A sharp eye must be kept on the relative well-being of the component sectors in agriculture, and their standing with the EC. At present, the pig industry and the poultry industry are in great trouble. The glasshouse industry is in such trouble that there could be a 25 per cent. cutback in the foreseeable future. The reason is the Government's insufficient monitoring of the unfair practices carried out by our EC partners. Unlike us, they subsidised, or—to be entirely fair— appeared to subsidise fuel costs, advertising, packaging and marketing.
The Government should give a public commitment to be sensitive to that and to ensuring that our agriculture and other industries are not disadvantaged in relation to the EC. Industry can be wrecked very quickly, and it takes an awfully long time to build it up again. We must be more watchful over our agriculture and horticulture. Such watchfulness would not have allowed the import of flowers with white rust, such as happened recently. Railways are vital to industry, and East Anglia and the country as a whole need an integrated transport policy. We do not want piecemeal hatchet jobs, such as the withdrawal of the East Anglian motor rail service for a niggardly saving of less than the cost of one automatic level crossing. Indeed, we need more of those crossings too.
As the railway line between March and Stamford has been closed and diverted, more trains are being sent across level crossings that are not automatic. As a result, the industrial estate outside Wittlesey finds that road traffic is being held up to its substantial cost and that of local industry. We need a flexible regional policy to help problem areas and to enable the region to benefit from EC grants. Above all, we need fair treatment in order to reduce unemployment and to eliminate pockets of depression, such as Wisbech with its 16 per cent. — plus unemployment.
A farsighted transport policy is vital for the creation of jobs and for prosperity. The Prime Minister has often said that hers is the party of the family. The Minister should bear in mind that it cannot be difficult to be the party of the family, when that party prevents people from going anywhere by public transport. I hope that the Government will consider that and will give East Anglia the deal that it deserves.

Mr. Keith Stainton: East Anglia is variously defined. I happen to come from Suffolk, so most of my remarks will concern the county of Suffolk, but they also apply to Cambridgeshire and Norfolk.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on what he said about the agricultural base, its prosperity and importance to East Anglia. However, it is important to impress upon him, or through him the Secretary of State, that the pig industry is suffering a severe setback. My hon. Friend pointed out that 32 per cent. of the national pig herd is concentrated in East Anglia. I am sure that many of his pig raisers, like mine, are now on the verge of bankruptcy. My comments also apply to those constituents who are

heavily involved in the glasshouse industry. Despite the general prosperity in agriculture, those two areas require urgent and special attention.
All those who have so far contributed to the debate have referred to transport. Curiously, though, the Minister got it wrong when he took such pride in proclaiming the high ratio of private car ownership in East Anglia. That ratio does not reflect prosperity—far from it. Indeed, average earnings in East Anglia are probably 10 per cent. below those in the nation as a whole. The high level of private car ownership is a stark index of the inadequacy of rural transport. I say that in a non-partisan way. I have represented Sudbury and Woodbridge for 20 years and I have no hesitation in making that statement and, in the same breath, underlining the urgent need for county transport officers to show much more imagination in the provision of rural bus services and the promotion of car sharing.
The Minister referred to the forthcoming electrification of the main railway line between London and Norwich. That is excellent. East Anglia is awaiting it most anxiously. However, we have a genuine ground for complaint in the quality of rolling stock that seems to be palmed off on East Anglia. Having seen better days elsewhere, it is reupholstered and refurbished for us to make use of. In addition, one can legitimately point a finger at British Rail and ask it what on earth has become of its experiments, for example, with the light railcar on the East Suffolk line? Indeed, how is British Rail getting on with the automatic level crossings? What energy is British Rail putting into resolving these problems, which could lead to enormous savings could produce funds that could be transferred to the branch lines and interlinking bus services that are so urgently needed?
The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) made a curious, hotchpotch sort of speech. I am sure that he will live to regret going on record about a lack of dynamism in the Isle of Ely. In contrast, Suffolk is bursting at the seams in all senses. The population is increasing and there is real thrust and enterprise. Nevertheless, it is overall a rural community. In addition to transport, the survival of the village is important. I should be grateful if the Minister would transmit to his colleagues the genuine and proper concern felt about the village school and the Government's future policy on it. A much clearer definition of the role of the village school, its existence and survival is urgently needed.
Much mention has been made of the EC. I am surprised, however, that the Minister did not point to the advantages that have accrued to East Anglia in recent times through the receipt of convergence moneys. Very substantial receipts were achieved by the Prime Minister personally; and they have contributed, for example, more than £20 million to the Ipswich southern bypass and the Orwell bridge. Perhaps the Minister will put right that omission in winding up the debate.
East Anglia is truly the gateway to Europe. I should like to think that Felixstowe has not merely shown the way to other ports in this country but set extremely high standards, comparable to any to be found in western Europe. In this context, however, I urge on the Minister the early publication of the criteria for the much-talked-of free port status for which Felixstowe is anxious to submit its application. There is great frustration at the moment.


My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor took time off in his Budget speech to refer to this innovation but since then very little, if anything, has occurred.
Could I briefly back up the valid point about the rate support grant made by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely? Without exception, the counties of East Anglia, however it is defined, have a real grudge in this respect. If rate support grant is expressed per capita between the different counties throughout the country, East Anglia is bumping along at the bottom under virtually every heading of expenditure. What we most fear are the holdback and the penalty arrangements announced in the last rate support grant White Paper. They could imply the ending of the GRE exemption with the possibility of GRE going out of the window. That would be greatly deplored. My colleagues on the Conservative benches would fight any such idea were it to become a concrete proposition from the Government.
The Minister appropriately laid great emphasis on the role and the achievements of small businesses. May I somewhat invert that point? I detect in some of our larger towns some over-dependence on a few big firms. I give as an example the dependence in Sudbury on Lucas Industries' CAV plant. That could be a precarious situation and when the Minister comes to reply I hope that we shall hear something about the strategic siting of business and factories. East Anglia would suffer a bad setback if only a handful of large firms experienced severe reversals.
I am sure that the Government are entirely right to resist the Opposition's motion and the amendment tabled to it by the SDP. We stand by our guns. East Anglia has achieved a great deal under this Government and, given attention to the kind of points that I have been privileged to make this afternoon, I am sure that the future bodes well.

Mr. John Garrett: The East Anglian region is easily overlooked by Governments, particularly when the House focuses, as often as it does, on the industrial wastelands of the north, Scotland, Wales and the west midlands. It is an area of rapidly growing population and economic importance with, until 1979, a growing industrial base. Since 1979 our industrial base has been severely damaged, but the population has continued to grow. This has given rise to a substantial loss in the quality of East Anglian life.
In one area of economic activity — farming — the Government and the EC have poured money into the region. Large farmers in East Anglia have done exceptionally well. Indeed, it is fair to say, as we do in our motion, that they have hit a jackpot. It is good to see that someone is doing well, but it is a pity that agricultural workers could not share in that jackpot to the same extent. Their benefit had been minimal, with a 6 per cent. wage increase in the past year. They are still the lowest paid workers in a job which increasingly requires technical knowledge and training. They have been treated shamefully. All too much of the money poured into agriculture in East Anglia has been used to destroy the landscape and the very environment which makes East Anglia so attractive a place to live.
Year after year, our wetlands have been drained with the help of huge Government subsidies. More hedges are being grubbed up and more woodlands torn out. East

Anglia is fast becoming a grain prairie, paid for mostly by the Government and the EC and used simply to add to the EC grain mountain. The damage to the East Anglian environment is an international scandal. More and more East Anglians are coming to recognise and complain about it. The Department of the Environment even pays to stop the destruction of the landscape while at the same time the Ministry of Agriculture pays for it to be carried on. If 10 per cent. of the money spent to subsidise agriculture in East Anglia had been spent on industrial development and transport, there would be nothing like the present level of unemployment.
The economic characteristics of East Anglia are, first, low wages, generally with not much change over the years —for the past 15 years wages have been about 15 per cent. below the national average — and secondly, relatively small scale industry and remarkably poor transport facilities. In an area of low wages, the social wage provided by public services and benefits makes an exceptionally important contribution to living standards. Yet in Norfolk we have not only low wages but a niggardly and backward county council that takes a pride in cutting public services — particularly education and social services—and reducing the quality of life of the county as a conscious matter of policy.
Luckily, in Norwich, we have a dynamic community which, I am pleased to say, has been under Labour control for 50 years and will no doubt be under Labour control until the end of time. It does its best to redress the effects of the worst efforts of the county. Norwich city council had, until the Government cuts, the best housing record of any city of its size in the country, and now, within the limits of the Government's policy, has embarked on a programme of industrial development that is already having an effect on local industry. It is difficult to have an effect on industry at local level when so much of it is being destroyed by Government policies.
One result in East Anglia of the Government's recession can be judged from the size of individual redundancy announcements over the past three years. They have all taken place in small towns, where the impact has been catastrophic. The Department of Industry has supplied me with two pages of details covering the major redundancy announcements. Norfolk county council has supplied me with a list of substantial redundancies that runs to eight pages. The examples are as follows: Perkins Engines, Peterborough, has lost 4,000 jobs; Birds Eye at Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft has lost 1,500 jobs; Pye of Lowestoft has lost 1,500 jobs; Boulton and Paul of Norwich has lost 1,000 jobs. Norvic was once the largest firm in the shoe-making industry, with 4,000 employees. When it was finally snuffed out as a result of Government policies — my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) and I had a great deal to do with that company and know that foreign imports and lack of home demand killed it off—it had 800 employees. Laurence Scott, an important and long-established electrical engineering company in Norwich, has lost more than 500 jobs; Elliott of Peterborough has lost 250 jobs; Smedley of Thetford has lost 200 jobs; Jeyes of Thetford has lost 300 jobs. The Minister boasted about the creation of another 40 jobs in Garboldisham or Diss but did not mention those two major redundancy announcements in his constituency. Plastak of Norwich has lost 200 jobs; Courtaulds of Norwich has lost 300 jobs — the final death knell of Norwich's textile industry, which dates back


500 years. Richard Garrett of Leiston has lost 640 jobs —one can imagine the impact of the announcement on a community of that size. Sunblest of Norwich has lost 240 jobs; Fakenham press of Fakenham has lost 230 jobs; Norplan of Norwich has lost 150 jobs.
The list goes on and on. I have before me eight pages of officially announced redundancies. All the companies to which I have referred have, in one way or another, been the victims of Government policy. In the county of Norfolk alone, the building industry has probably lost 5,000 jobs. Until the Government were elected in 1979, Norfolk was gaining jobs at the rate of 3,000 a year; now it is losing them at a rate of 10,000 to 12,000 a year.
A key local industry in Norwich, footwear, is a good example of the indifference of the Government to some of our major industries. The footwear industry has suffered one closure or redundancy after another, yet all help for it has been refused by the Government. They ended the last Labour Government's scheme of assistance for the industry before half the money was spent—about £4.5 million out of the £11 million which was earmarked. They have not revived the retail commitment which operated under the Labour Government. Under that, British footwear multiple retailers were encouraged to purchase British-made shoes; there is no sanction because the Price Commission has gone and the Government cannot influence who buys as a result of the purchasing policies of the large, near-monopolistic companies.
The Government have ended the short-time working compensation scheme which was of enormous benefit to the footwear industry. They have refused to introduce the footwear design scheme which was proposed on an all-party basis by the footwear Neddy. They have done nothing about unfairly priced footwear imports. For the Government, the Norwich footwear industry can disappear entirely, yet over 3,000 people in the city still depend on it. The Government have offered it absolutely nothing. A real attempt was made to stop the rot in the footwear industry by the last Labour Government, and that had great consequences for Norwich. But the whole system of help for the industry has since been dismantled.
Thanks to the initiative of Norwich city council in industrial promotion, new jobs are being created. But last year the collapse of one small constructional engineering company, Stevenson, wiped out all the gains that had been made by the city council and the chamber of commerce working together to create jobs. Since May 1979, unemployment in Norwich has risen by 170 per cent. In other parts of the region it is even worse. In Haverhill, Thetford and Lowestoft it has risen to over 200 per cent. since the Government came to office.
As other hon. Members have said, a major impediment to the economic development of the region is its poor public transport system and inadequate roads. The region has virtually no motorway mileage and has a clapped-out railway system using obsolete stock. Our economic future depends on a decent road network, and high priority must be given to upgrading the All to Norwich and providing the A47 Norwich southern bypass. Our rural bus system adds to the deprivation of the towns and villages in Norfolk. We must give improvement schemes a high priority and not put them off year after year.
The social infrastructure — we refer to social conditions in the motion — is totally inadequate. In

Norfolk, we are no fewer than, 1,000 places short, by national standards, in residential places for the elderly. We have less than half the recommended national provision of home helps. In the last 10 years, home help provision in terms of hours of service per household has been halved. We have one sixth of the required day nursery places. We have an exceptionally fast-growing population of the elderly in East Anglia, yet the region is one of the most financially deprived in the country.
It all adds up to a county with a low provision of facilities for the elderly, handicapped and children. The continual cutting of public expenditure by the Government and an inadequate allowance under the new block grant arrangements penalise a region of high growth and low spending, and that means that standards of public provision in the region are constantly under pressure and are now in absolute decline.
The Government cuts in housing are particularly hard felt. Norwich used to start 500 or more houses a year. This year the starts are 100. The waiting list has risen from 3,400 in 1979 to 4,100 today. In 1979, when the Conservative party came to office, there were 1,000 houses under construction or for which contracts had been let. Today there are 158. At my Saturday morning surgeries I have to explain to my constituents that they cannot have houses because of Government policy.
The community is being damaged in other ways, and I shall raise one local issue. On the edge of Norwich is a new development called Bowthorpe, which has received international acclaim because of the standard of the environment and its community services. It will eventually house 13,500 people. It is intended to create three self-contained villages there, the first of which is nearing completion. It has always been understood that the villages should have educational provision and Norwich, when it was the education authority, made it clear that the necessary schools would be provided so as to make it a self-contained community with all the community facilities. Now, to cope with the growth of development, Bowthorpe needs a new first school and an expansion of its middle school. These have been refused by the county council and instead it is proposed that children should go outside the development to school, with all the dangers which that must entail.
This is an issue not wholly of education but of community building. One cannot set up a new community without schools and facilities such as pubs, shops and so on. Therefore, for this community to thrive as a place in which to live, it should have adequate educational provision, but the county has refused it. It is essential for young children in the community to go to school in the community. To deprive it of schools is to bring into question the whole idea of a balanced community, but that is what Norfolk county council proposes.
Ministers have elaborately washed their hands of the case. When the Minister came to Norwich he seemed to spend virtually all his time in hiding, running out of back doors of buildings to avoid being approached on the subject.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Not true.

Mr. Garrett: Yes he did, though I can understand how shy he must be of meeting ordinary people with ordinary problems. Ministers have elaborately washed their hands


of this case because they refuse to recognise that their Tory colleagues in the county council are behaving unreasonably. It is a perfect case of a typical backward Tory county council simply not caring, always believing that any publc expenditure is a cost and not an investment.
The fight on this issue will go on. The lessons have certainly been learnt by my constituents in Bowthorpe, because it is a good example of what a spineless Tory county council, backed by a ruthless Tory Government, can do to a community in East Anglia, and there are many other such communities. East Anglians know that the blame for their declining services and their lost jobs must be placed fairly and squarely on the Government.

Sir Paul Hawkins: The debate was held up by the SDP moving various objections to orders. Indeed, I thought that they did not want the debate to take place at all. I do not wonder at that, because they will probably not have a seat in East Anglia after the next election.
The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) spoke about dynamism. I should have thought that Chatteris, in his constituency, was one of the most dynamic villages for producing carrot enterprises. Indeed, men from there have started carrot industries throughout East Anglia.

Mr. Freud: To put the record right, I referred to what the Government called "dynamic industry" — [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Yes I did.

Sir P. Hawkins: I have ears and I heard what the hon. Gentleman said. A dynamic constituent of mine, one Gordon Parker, was a small corn merchant who started the Felixstowe docks and made a great success of them.
Everyone seems to have a different idea of what areas are comprised in the term "East Anglia". Doubtless there will be speakers from suburban Essex and Hertfordshire claiming to be in East Anglia. I believe that the term should apply only to Norfolk and Suffolk. At a pinch—when I am feeling generous — I would allow the inclusion of the Isle of Ely and possibly Holland and Lincolnshire, but I shall confine my remarks to Norfolk and in particular my constituency of Norfolk, South-West.
Though "foreigners" consider Norfolk to be flat, it has its highlands— as anyone who knows Norfolk will have heard — to distinguish the area from the fens or marshland to the west. Despite the name, I am afraid that my constituents never succeed in getting hill cow or sheep subsidies.
In fact Norfolk has an immense variety of scenery. There are the Fens, reclaimed from the valley of the river Ouse and marshland reclaimed from the sea; the sandy Breckland, which was formerly the home of great flocks of bustards; Sandringham pines and heather; the Broads; and the golden sands of the north coast.
Living near the Great Ouse as I have always done, I am fascinated by the immense drainage schemes and engineering work of the Dutchman, Vermuyden, particularly Denver Sluice, close to my home. In the 1950s further enormous drainage schemes were completed which ensure freedom from flooding for a large acreage of my constituency and provide fresh water through a pipeline back into Essex.
Not far to the east is the northern part of the Thetford forest, which provides marvellous walking. From

Constable to Crome and Cotman to Edward Seago the skies of East Anglia have been beloved of painters. The farmlands of East Anglia have, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, become the grain store and sugar bowl of Britain. It must be remembered how much employment, agriculture and the sugar beet industry brings to East Anglia. The haulage contractors, the sugar beet workers in the factories and many people up and down the country depend upon the money coming from farming in East Anglia.
The exaggerated stories of prairie farming are untrue. It comes ill from the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) to talk about farming and his knowledge of it. I have been connected with farming, but not a farmer — in the middle between farmers, merchants and landlords—and I know that much—

Mr. John Garrett: rose—

Sir Paul Hawkins: I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my sentence first.
I have known Norfolk all my life. It must be remembered that a large part of East Anglia, particularly the Breckland, had no hedges and few trees until the 1850s. It was then enclosed. Hedges were put down and now some of the fields are too small for present farming implements. It is there that people are mistakenly talking about prairie farming.

Mr. Garrett: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that he does not recognise the right of a representative of Norwich to have views about the environment of our county and the damage that is being done it by the farming that we are now seeing? Does he deny me that right?

Sir Paul Hawkins: I do not deny the hon. Gentleman any right at all. I could not. I only say that when the hon. Gentleman speaks of farming he should know a little more about it and not make inaccurate criticisms. The hon. Gentleman has a colleague in the other place —Lord Melchett — who is always putting about the most extraordinary and exaggerated stories about farming in East Anglia and elsewhere.

Mr. Garrett: He is a farmer.

Sir Paul Hawkins: Yes, he came to Norfolk and bought a farm and that apparently allows him to talk at great length about his
bitter shame and anger at the uncontrollable and irreversible destruction of our countryside 
He talks of the "bare barley plains" but if they have barley on them they are certainly not bare. He made both those comments in a recent speech.
I could take anyone on a 50-mile drive from my home and we should always be in sight of hedgerows and trees. We have some lovely countryside and I have watched landlords and farmers planting hedgerows, trees and small plantations, making the countryside in which they live a more beautiful place.
As I have said, Breckland never had hedges or trees. It was a sheepwalk until it was enclosed in the last century. During the last 20 years or so many hedgerows and trees have been planted by farmers, landowners and the much-despised Norfolk county council. Some years ago when I was a member of that council I and 'others pressed for planting to be carried out on our roadsides and enormous numbers of trees have been planted over the past 15 to 20 years.
Yet I must admit that even this lovely county has its problems. Many firms which were closely involved with the motor industry are now naturally going through bad times. There is high unemployment for many small engineering firms, despite the brave endeavours of many councils, particularly the Breckland and west Norfolk district councils, which have put a lot of money into building factories to let.
Travel to work is expensive. Many council houses were built at a time when there were the three or four men per 100 acres. They were built in isolated villages when, as I have said, many more people worked on farms than do today. The main centres of employment are near the perimeter— King' s Lynn, Thetford and Norwich—and daily journeys of 30 to 40 miles are commonplace. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) will agree that the large number of cars per head of population are a necessity rather than a sign of great wealth. It is worrying and unfair that workers who have to travel 20, 30 or 40 miles to work cannot set off their travelling expenses against tax, whereas many private businesses can set off most of their car expenses against tax. We must do something for employees in the rural areas who have to travel to work. Many people are put off working at all because of high motoring expenses. In addition, pensioners complain of infrequent and costly buses. I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that we must set to work to try to improve rural travel in our area.
Errors were made by planners in the past. They have reduced many pleasant villages to suburbs of bungalows. Worse still, when they saw the estates being built, they jumped to the conclusion that they would be filled with young married couples who would soon be producing children. In fact, they were completely wrong, because most of the houses were sold to retired people coming from London, Essex, Northampton, Leicester and Nottingham. The education planners then built large schools and they now find that they cannot fill them, so rural schools are being closed.
The large number of retired people coming to Norfolk has meant a great increase in the demand for social services, hospitals, doctors and welfare workers. No Government have recognised the large costs of that and of the upkeep of a huge network of roads when they allocate the rate support grant. Like Norfolk people, our county council has an excellent record for thrift. Yet because of thrift in the past—[Interruption.] Yes, thrift in keeping rates down, which increases the chance of industry coming to Norfolk. Yet because of thrift in the past it appears that our county is penalised and the rate support grant is cut. That causes considerable resentment.
Norfolk used to be on the way to nowhere, pleasantly cut off from the rest of England. That is no longer true. The main route from the industrial midlands to our successful east coast ports lies through our county. We deserve more money for bypasses and road improvements, although, to give credit where credit is due, I have been fortunate in my constituency in getting bypasses under two Governments for each of my three small market towns. I want some more, though.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the bypasses that are

required for towns and villages, the route from the east midlands through East Anglia to Norwich and other towns is deficient in potential for a main road?

Sir Paul Hawkins: Of course.
Norfolk, the most important part of East Anglia, has many things going for it—good land, a lovely coastline, forests, skies and above all, fine men and women. We ask the Government for greater understanding of our problems, particularly the cost of servicing such a widely scattered community. I ask most strongly for a fresh look at the way in which the rate support grant is calculated, in the hope that Norfolk will get a fairer share next time.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I shall not follow the suggestion of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) and attempt to place my constituency of Thurrock in East Anglia. In three important respects the problems of Essex, particularly of my constituency, are shared by East Anglia. I shall mention them and outline the problems that have been intensified by Government policy over the past four years.
First, we are in the same Britsh Rail region. Secondly we also share the same problems over the rate support grant. I was glad to note that during the hon. Gentleman's remarks the Minister was nodding in agreement with his comments about the inadequacy of the criteria that the Government apply to the various counties in respect of the block grant. The Minister might want to jump up and withdraw his nod, but we all saw it.
Thirdly, we share the rise in unemployment. The Manpower Services Commission review published in January 1983 covers the whole of the south-east region. In the six months up to January 1983 Cambridgeshire, Essex and Norfolk, to mention three counties out of that region, suffered the fate of a more rapidly rising rate of unemployment than the country as a whole. In those six months the increase in unemployment was 5.5 per cent. in general. In Cambridgeshire it was 8.6 per cent., in Essex it was 6.6 per cent. and in Norfolk it was 7.4 per cent. In other words, the recession, as the Government choose to call it, or the impact of Government policies, as we in the Opposition prefer to call it, has begun to hit parts of the south-east particularly hard. It has affected my county as well.
I share the objections about British Rail's rolling stock and the starvation of capital investment in that region of British Rail. The rolling stock seems to be old. In my neck of the woods it is often dirty and vandalised. It has been said that it is reupholstered before being sent off to the eastern region. I only wish that that were true of the stock that is sent to the Fenchurch street line, which often does not seem to have been reupholstered.
The service has deteriorated over the past four years. At the same time the cost of travelling on the Fenchurch street line has risen remarkably. The cost of an annual season ticket from Grays, which is one of the main towns in my constituency, was £401 in May 1979 and it is now £659. That increase over the past four years would make a large hole in anyone's wages. For that cost of nearly £660 a year, the traveller travels on an inadequate, ancient railway that is desperately in need of revitalisation.
I am surprised that the Minister, in what he read out from Labour's programme, did not say that we intend to increase investment in British Rail and provide a better,


more up-to-date and more comfortable public transport system at a more reasonable price than has been available to commuters since 1979. It is high time that work was commenced on that because it would provide jobs as well.
I have already referred to the inadequacy of the block grant. Essex is another part of the country where the population is rapidly expanding, particularly with young couples with children who demand most from the Health Service, and the social and education services. In Essex the latter have suffered tremendous cuts over the past four years. Important extra-curricular activities such as swimming lessons have been cut out in Thurrock and in Essex generally, school meals services have been cut back and the standards particularly of primary education have deteriorated because of the cuts both in the numbers of staff—there is already a low staffing ratio—and in the provision of books and other equipment for the schools. I see the Minister nod, and I entirely agree with him. It is high time that in looking at the distribution of the block grant the Government took proper account of changes in population in the shire counties and tried to provide sufficient money to meet the needs—

Mr. MacGregor: rose—

Dr. McDonald: I shall not let the Minister escape from his extremely helpful nod, which has been supported on both sides of the House.
Unemployment in Essex has risen sharply. It is well above the national average. That rise has taken place at a greater rate over the six months to January 1983. I shall compare the numbers of unemployed in Thurrock in 1979 with the current numbers. At 10 May 1979 there were 2,767 unemployed in Thurrock. The latest unemployment figure on the new basis of counting is 8,181. That understates the amount of unemployment in my constituency. As we know, the purpose of the new basis of counting was deliberately to try to lower the unemployment figures. They no longer represent the number of people who require a job but merely those who are entitled to benefits and who therefore register.
Unemployment in Thurrock is now 15.7 per cent., which is higher than in Essex as a whole and higher than the national average. It is higher in this part of Essex because it is an industrial part of the county, and it is industry that Government policies have utterly undermined over the past four years. In 1979, when Labour left office, a number of establishments in my constituency employed over 1,000 people. Now there are none, apart from the docks. Not one establishment — not Shell, Mobil, Procter and Gamble, Van den Berghs, Thames Board or Thames Case — employs more than 1,000 people. Every industry has been hit by Government policies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) referred to the shoe industry in his constituency. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) will describe vicissitudes of the shoe industry in the past four years. A shoe factory just about remains in my constituency. In 1979, it employed 1,572 people, but this year that number will be reduced to 864. Government policy has virtually halved the work force because they have refused to continue Labour's scheme for assisting the industry and blocking cheap imports. The factory in my constituency suffers badly from imports from South Korea. It also suffers from the withdrawal of

the temporary short-time working scheme and has suffered from a reduction in Ministry of Defence orders as it makes shoes for the Armed Forces.
I could list every industry that has been hit by Government policies but it would not be fair to do so. I shall just give a few more examples. The paper and board industry in my constituency has been hit by the Government's attitude towards energy pricing policy. The Government have been told repeatedly by representatives of that industry that its competitors' energy costs are subsidised. It is a high energy-consuming industry which has made every effort to satisfy its energy needs in the most efficient and cheapest way. A boiler that burns marsh gas has recently been installed and will soon come into operation, but the factory has had no assistance from the Government. The Government have closed their eyes to the fact that Canada, America, Sweden and West Germany subsidise the energy costs of their paper and board industries. The result is that, if we are not careful, although we may manufacture goods in Britain we shall reach the point when we cannot supply the packaging for those goods. It is absurd for any Government to preside over that.
Ford at Dagenham makes every effort to increase productivity and to be competitive. Nevertheless. in 1981 it produced 470,000 fewer cars than in any of the previous four years. It is yet another major industry which has been hit by the Government's policies. In Ford's case, the problem is primarily the result of the Government's refusal to recognise the need for import controls, but Ford has also been affected by policies that have lowered domestic demand for both commercial and private vehicles to one of the lowest levels ever.
It is no wonder, therefore, that unemployment in my constituency is well above the national average. Every policy that the Government have insisted on introducing in the past four years has been to the detriment of local industry. It is also no wonder that the problems that I have mentioned are common to Essex and East Anglia, as they are similar. Those counties are reeling from the effects of Government policy on industry, agriculture and the environment.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I condole with the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) on having to move this ludicrous motion. His references to the brief time that was available to him struck me as having a rather wider connotation, given the state of his majority, than the time that is available for this debate. He then had to refer to East Anglia as the gateway to Europe when he is a dedicated believer in clanging that door shut. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on keeping a straight face when he moved the motion and advanced his arguments.
The people of Cambridge and Cambridgeshire will read this motion with utter incredulity, especially that section of it that relates to agriculture and envisages the Labour party as the party of the countryside. They will read the Opposition's reference to "weakened industry" and disaster and remember the speech of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), who rarely appears in the House as he is constantly on the television screens, that informed us that Oxford and Cambridge are cancers in our society. If my city, which has more Nobel prize winners than any


country is a cancer, I suggest that, unlike other cancers, it should be encouraged and developed rather than derided and denigrated.
The Opposition are perfectly entitled to choose their own weapons for debate. It is not our fault if they choose boomerangs. Four years ago, I described Cambridge as a city which had the potential to become a boom town. It has. When one considers circumstances in Cambridge and East Anglia, the vital link between higher education, technology and prosperity, the development of the science park, which was the creation of Dr. John Bradfield, the Bursar of Trinity, and others and which is being emulated in other university and non-university cities, and the advantages, jobs and prosperity that emanate from science and technology, my task of impressing people that these are the industries of the future is made much easier. The fiction of capital-intensive being wrong and labour-intensive being right is one of the major myths of our time.
As my hon. Friend the Minister emphasised, the future lies with small prosperous firms which create jobs and the wealth which creates yet more jobs. I do not know why the hon. Member for Ipswich was so disparaging about service industries. What is wrong with them? Historically, and not only in East Anglia, prosperity is created by relatively small industries which germinate and spread outwards to create the wealth of an entire area. The lessons of Cambridge show the importance of small businesses, diversification, and high technology, illustrate the perils of one-company cities and demonstrate the importance —the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) will not like this — of high technology industries that are involved—

Dr. McDonald: That is rubbish.

Mr. Rhodes James: —with the armaments industry.
I admit that we have problems, even unemployment is less that 6 per cent. Even if one believes Beveridge, who said that 4 per cent. unemployment was nil unemployment, that figure of 6 per cent. is 6 per cent. too much. Although we have, I am sorry to say, a Labour-Social Democratic council which has made Cambridge a nuclear-free zone, we have it in mind to make Cambridge a Socialist-free zone on 5 May. Nevertheless, our key problem lies in rates and rating, especially industrial rates. Pye in Cambridge now has to pay £50,000 a year more than it did three years ago. If we quantify that in terms of jobs and job opportunities, we are dealing with a considerable number. It is crucial that the Conservative party and the Government address themselves again to that, as it is one of the key problems which we face.
The rating system is inequitable and can be corrected only by electing Conservative councils. The burden which is now being placed on home owners and industry is the one factor which is holding back an even greater expansion of East Anglia and especially the city of Cambridge. We look forward to our future with considerable optimism. We have the record, the achievement, the name and a tremendous future, but only under a Conservative Government.

Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: Although the SDP supports the first part of the official Opposition's motion, it does not agree with the

wording of the second part. Therefore, we tabled an amendment, first, to show our support for the continuation of British membership of the EC, which brings great benefits not only to agriculture in East Anglia but to East Anglian business and industry in general, and, secondly, to show our knowledge that the success of East Anglian farmers, which we welcome, is a crucial element in the economy of East Anglia and contributes greatly to the standard of living, poor though it is, in rural areas. Without a viable agriculture, unemployment would be even worse than it is in rural areas and the standard of living would be even lower.
The Minister asserted that all our unemployment was a result of that wicked world slump over which we have no control. Ministers must understand that in 1979 unemployment in Britain was the same as the average for the EC or the European OECD countries, and about 0.4 per cent. higher than the figure for the OECD as a whole. By December 1982 our unemployment was more than one third higher than the average for Europe and 50 per cent. higher than the average for the OECD countries as a whole. The increases of 53 per cent. and 59 per cent. for the EC and the OECD countries compare with the increase in Britain of 144 per cent. during this Government's term of office.
If that were not bad enough, East Anglia has suffered even more. In Norfolk, the county part of which I am proud to represent, unemployment has increased by about 150 per cent. I shall give three examples from my constituency on both the old and the new figures. In Fakenham, between March 1979 and October 1982 unemployment has increased from 8·6 per cent. to 16·5 per cent., and on the new figures the current estimate is about 18 per cent. in real terms. In Hunstanton it has increased from 11·7 per cent. to 21·4 per cent. The current level is just over 30 per cent. and is probably as high as 33 per cent. In King's Lynn it has increased from 6·3 per cent. to 13 per cent. and is currently estimated to be 15 per cent. Those increases are intolerable, and more than half of them are a direct result of the Government's policies and have nothing to do with the world slump.
A report commissioned recently by the borough council of King's Lynn and west Norfolk, and financed by the Manpower Services Commission, shows that unemployment, expressed as a percentage of the working population, is higher than the average in East Anglia and in Great Britain. It is increasingly structural unemployment, and most of the jobs that have been lost will not reappear. When Conservative Members talk about the new small firms that are starting, which we also welcome, they do not tell the House how many small firms have gone out of business because of Government policy.
We wish to see a coherent programme to deal with general unemployment, by which we mean investment in capital projects such as roads, railways, drainage, sea defences and house improvements, that would generate the employment that we desperately need. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) also needs jobs for his constituency, so it ill becomes him to laugh. We need those jobs quickly because I am disturbed, as are many of my constituents, by the poor prospects, especially for the young unemployed, in the most remote rural areas. Not only have they had no training, but inadequate transport means that they cannot reach training centres. Even if there is transport, the financial disincentive puts them off. In some rural areas


Government policies are creating pockets of extremely high unemployment in percentage terms, although relatively small in numbers, that will endure for a long time if those youngsters get into the habit of not being trained or not going to work as a regular part of their daily lives.
I wish that I could persuade the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, who will reply to the debate, to consult the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and decide whether unemployment in my constituency is structural or cyclical. The Department of Employment believes it to be structural. Something must be done about it. The Government should think about introducing a scheme to deal with small numbers of unemployed where the high percentage of unemployment is socially unacceptable. They should consider enterprise zones in rural areas. Our county structure plan proposes the development of some larger villages over a period, and the Government should develop plans along with the county council to tackle those small pockets of high unemployment.
Unemployment is the major result of Government policies to date, but three other aspects of their policy cause great concern in my area. Several hon. Members have already mentioned transport. There is an urgent need for major capital investment in the east-west road routes. Two routes that pass through my constituency, the A 17 and the A47, are main roads from the north and the midlands to the east coast ports. As long ago as early 1970 a Conservative Government promised that they would be upgraded to dual carriageways— indeed, the A17 was scheduled to be a strategy route—by the early 1980s. Successive Governments have cut that investment programme, leaving us with appalling, old-fashioned, single carriageway A roads of the worst standard in the United Kingdom. It is incumbent upon the Government to put a major effort into bringing forward those schemes to give us dual carriageways of a standard that is taken for granted in the north of England. The present roads make it difficult for new industries and firms to be attracted to the area.
I am surprised that other hon. Members have not referred to the threat that hangs over transport in East Anglia because of the Serpell report. Of the six options contained in that report, no fewer than three envisaged cutting the King's Lynn to London railway line. The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) will probably tell the House when he speaks that at least one, if not two, envisaged cutting off Norwich as well, so denuding the whole of East Anglia of a railway system. I join those who urge the Government to consider sensibly a coherent and integrated transport plan for the region. It is impossible that East Anglia will climb out of this recession unless there is some Government activity, both to improve roads and rail and preferably in co-ordinated approach.
There is also the effect of the Government's policy on the rural motorist. As other hon. Members have pointed out, no fewer than 80 per cent. of people in rural areas travel to work in their own private transport. I recall, as Conservative Members will, that in late May 1977, the then Conservative Opposition voted against substantial increases in both vehicle excise duty and hydrocarbon oil duty on the grounds that taxes on petrol and on cars were a tax on the rural poor. It is disgraceful that, although the Conservatives voted against proposals for a 5p increase in

tax on that occasion, since the Government came to office there have been five increases in petrol tax amounting to nearly l0p a litre, which has added substantially to the costs for those living in rural areas and depending on the motor car to get to and from work. The Government have raised the vehicle excise duty on four occasions since they came to office, from £50 to £60 to £70 to £80 to £85. That is a substantial increase in the taxes paid by the rural poor.
I and many of my constituents are concerned that the high level of unemployment and the appallingly low level of economic activity in East Anglia have led to rising crime. Crime in the county of Norfolk has risen by over 40 per cent. since the Government came into office, and the rate of detection has fallen so that more than two out of every three serious crimes committed in our county go undetected. I urge the Government to take this matter up, because our chief constable is on the record as saying that he is 200 men short of the complement necessary to provide security in our county. For the Conservative party, which claims erroneously to be the party of law and older, to have presided over this deterioration in standards in our county is disgraceful.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: I add my voice in support of the Government's amendment concerning inflation, small businesses and agriculture. Hertfordshire is a fringe county of East Anglia and has a lower level of unemployment than most counties in the United Kingdom, despite continuing population growth, and a higher level of technological development, despite the difficulties of world recession. The two are clearly interrelated. The people of the area are the beneficiaries, whether we are talking about aerospace, pharmaceuticals, service industries or whatever other developing sector. Welwyn and Hatfield have excellent examples that illustrate the positive approach of the Hertfordshire business men and work force. They are backed by the Hertfordshire chamber of commerce, which contributes greatly to local industry both large and small.
Labour party policies, which include renationalising the aerospace industry, nationalising pharmaceuticals and display a lack of commitment to service industries and the other locally developing sectors, would be disastrous to East Anglia, and to Hertfordshire in particular. The need is for the Government to remain firm in their resolve. That is the only way to continue benefiting those people whom we are trying to represent.
There are moves at present, spearheaded by the Hertfordshire county council, to promote the county as an admirable place to develop industry and encourage investment. This is undoubtedly a realistic approach given the advantages of communications, skills and pleasant living conditions as well as its record. The county has an enviable position upon which it is right to capitalise. Hertfordshire is both a home county and East Anglian. It can gain the advantages of both, but the more so with the continuation of a Conservative Government.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: rose—

Mr. David Ennals: I warmly welcome the debate and regret that as a result—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order concerns mainly the etiquette


of the procedures of the House and I should be grateful for your guidance. This, as you have said, is a remarkably short debate, but all the more welcome for that. It will be within your knowledge, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the two opening Front Bench speeches took a total of 43 minutes. It has been arranged by the usual channels that the winding-up speeches shall take 35 minutes. That is a total of 78 minutes from a debate that is scheduled to last not longer than 150 minutes, so that the four speakers from the Front Benches will have occupied well over half—55 per cent. — of the debate. I believe that to be bad manners on the part of Front Bench spokesmen towards their colleagues in the House, particularly those from East Anglia. I should be obliged if, because it lies in your discretion, you would allow the debate to continue for a short while after the arranged conclusion at 7 o'clock so that others may be able to make their contributions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I know that he has been here during the debate. This is a short debate, and it is difficult for the Chair to call every hon. Member who wishes to speak. It has been arranged for the convenience of the House that the debate will end at about 7 o'clock. Many hon. Members wish to speak in the next debate. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, who has experience in these matters, that he may be able to intervene during the speeches from the Front Benches.

Mr. Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that this is another point of order, because we are short of time.

Mr. Griffiths: That is so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I recognise the difficulties in which you are placed and those difficulties are the last thing to which I should wish to add. With respect, I should not take up your suggestion because that would have the effect of prolonging both the Front Bench speeches. I should simply like to ask you to take note in future occasions of the extraordinary selfishness and bad manners of Front Benches when they truncate a debate, and take well over half the time available for such a short debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know your problem and difficulty, because we all know that Mr. Speaker has much say in these matters, and that the occupant of the Chair carries out Mr. Speaker's desire. However, I suggest that you have a word with Mr. Speaker and ask him whether he could arrange a way of calling the speakers for the short debates so as to ensure that those who are called to speak at least stay to hear one other speech. I have not wanted to speak in this debate but I have been here. I have seen what happens. The same old regulars get called, make their speech, and then walk out. Could Mr. Speaker consider looking at this problem and saying that he will not in future call those who make a speech and then walk out? This would help to stop some of those who do so now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point, and I shall certainly discuss it with Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ennals: I regret the further delays. For the record, I point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) spoke for five minutes less than the Minister. Equally, the Under-Secretary of State for Employment asked for 30 minutes. I said that that was intolerable and we agreed upon 20 minutes.
I welcome a debate on East Anglia. It is often supposed by those who live outside East Anglia that our region has somehow been spared the destructive results of Government policies since 1979. This is untrue. Indeed, it is the opposite of the truth. They have done untold damage to the security of the people and to the fabric of our society, including the environment.
The Minister, in opening the debate, referred to "The New Hope for Britain". It is time that Britain had some new hope. That is why we published the document. That is why it will be the basis of our manifesto. He asked what the electorate were thinking when they voted in 1979. They were misled by the Conservatives with promises that they would reduce unemployment. Look at what has happened. There were promises that they would cut taxes. Now a person has to earn over £29,000 a year before he gets any benefit from tax cuts.
The Minister referred to agriculture. He rightly says that the farmers have done pretty well. That is true—they are the most heavily subsidised group in the nation. But the people who have not benefited comparably have been the farm workers, who have had to put up with extremely modest pay settlements. Probably the only thing on which I agreed with the Minister was his reference to the hard-working and energetic people of East Anglia. I believe that they get less in cash and services than their good qualities deserve.
As for the new constituency of Norwich, North, let not the hon. Gentleman worry. Norwich has two Labour Members now and it will have two Labour Members after the next election.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) is not in his place at the moment because I thought that he made a very fair and balanced speech. I believe that he is held in great respect in the House and that we shall all miss him.
I am also sorry that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) is not here because I wanted to congratulate him on having been re-selected to stand for his constituency. I was a little surprised that he used the term "the much-despised Norfolk county council". It came a little surprisingly from him. As far as I am concerned, when someone talks of thrift in the Norfolk county council, what they really mean is cuts, but I agree with him —I want to come to this in a few minutes—that we must have a fresh look at the rate support grant.
The Minister asked at one stage whether East Anglia ought to be considered worthy of special assistance from the Government. Had the current statistics of economic decline and hardship existed in Labour's day it would have put the East Anglian region into the category of a depressed area. Of course it was not so treated when Labour was in power because, as I shall prove, and as has been proved by other speakers, the situation is totally different now from what it was when the Tory Government came to power. There has been a massive decline in employment opportunities, not only in East Anglia but in other parts of the country. It is no good the Minister saying, as all Ministers keep saying, that it is all the fault


of the world recession. They know that is not true. Since the Government came to power more jobs have been lost each year than in any other major industrialised country.
Taking the unemployment figures first—because it is those that worry my constituents most — the total for those out of work in the whole of East Anglia has increased by 250 per cent. since the Tory Government came in. Norfolk has suffered more than either of the other two counties—Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. Let me give one or two examples: Hunstanton, 28 per cent. unemployed; Cromer, 19·6 per cent.; Great Yarmouth, 17·5 per cent.; Wisbech, 17·3 per cent.; Dereham, 16·4 per cent.; Lowestoft, 15·8 per cent.; Peterborough, 15·5 per cent.
In Norwich, the number of jobless has risen from 4,610 in 1979 to 12,594. That is a massive increase and of course it is the result, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, south (Mr. Garrett) said, of the massive redundancies and closures of firms such as Norvic and the effect upon other industries throughout the region, particularly in Norwich.
Unemployment for the under-18s has risen in Norwich from 294 in 1979 to a massive 1,776 — a sixfold increase in young people unemployed. No wonder, as the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. BrocklebankFowler) said, that there has been a massive increase in crime. If there is a massive increase in unemployed young people, inevitably, as night follows day, there will be an increase in crime, and there has been an appalling increase in crime in Norfolk.
The Minister referred to the Norfolk and Norwich chamber of commerce. I am delighted that the city of Norwich is a member of that chamber of commerce and has a good basis of co-operation with it. In its last report the Norfolk and Norwich chamber of commerce reported more firms with a declining work force than with an increasing work force, and 67 per cent. of the firms reported that they were operating below capacity.
The managing director of one of the largest employers in Norwich, which has just announced 40 redundancies and has seen its work force cut by one third in the past three years, told me last Friday that although there was much talk of an economic upturn he had seen no tangible signs of it affecting his firm. We now have unemployment in Norfolk at about the national average of 13·1 per cent., with massive youth unemployment and the almost inevitable dramatic increase in crime.
Unemployment is compounded by other factors in terms of the decline in the standard and quality of life in East Anglia—and, again, particularly in Norfolk. We have seen cuts in the educational programme and we have seen a serious worsening of the housing situation. Perhaps I could follow what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South said and give one or two statistics. I pick on Norwich because it is probably one of the best housing authorities in the country.
The current figure for housing units under construction is about 150—only one sixth of the 1,000 that were under construction in 1979. Secondly, housing starts this year are only a quarter of those in 1979. As a natural consequence, the housing waiting lists in Norwich are up by 1,300 and waiting time is up by an average of 12 months. Finally, although the city council has managed to achieve a rent freeze for the next 12 months, rents are now 250 per cent. up on the figures for 1979, while inflation has risen by something over 70 per cent. All this is a direct result of Government housing policy.
Other services have been touched upon by hon. Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South mentioned the problem of schooling. Schools are being closed and playing fields are being sold by the Norfolk county council simply to raise funds. The interests of the children have been forgotten in the interest of saving money.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to transport. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West referred to the problems of roads and buses. They have all suffered as a result of Government policies, partly owing to cuts in Government and local authority expenditure but also owing to the grossly unfair way in which Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire—again a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South and by other hon. Members on both sides of the House—have been treated by the Secretary of State for the Environment in the rate support grant. Let me develop that point a bit.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Hogwash.

Mr. Ennals: This is a point of crucial importance. The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, says it is hogwash.

Mr. Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Ennals: I will not give way. The Minister did not give way and I am not going to give way.
The hon. Gentleman has attended, as I have, meetings with representatives of the three authorities and he knows how strongly they feel. He told them that he did not agree. They are very clear that East Anglia is Britain's fastest growing region in terms of population, with the population of some districts increasing by as much as 4 per cent in the past two years. The region's grant-related expenditure assumes a smaller number of the total population, especially schoolchildren and the elderly, than is actually the case.
There is far more to it than that. In England as a whole, the proportion of local government expenditure met by central Government has been reduced from 56·1 per cent. in 1982–83 to 52·8 per cent. in 1983–84. For East Anglia, the grant loss is £25·8 million—the second successive large cut imposed on the three counties. If the grant had remained at the 1981–82 level, let alone the far higher level under the Labour Government, East Anglia local authorities would be £50 million better off. The cut has meant a switch to rates of 19·3p in the pound.
We now have the absurd situation, for which the Government are entirely responsible, in which those three low-spending counties are being penalised as high spenders. So great are the penalties imposed by the Secretary of State for the Environment that if the three counties were to spend in line with the national average they would receive no Government grant at all. That is sheer lunacy. I hope that the Minister will offer some explanation, as this is a matter of worry to hon. Members on both sides. It is grossly unfair not just to my constituents but to people throughout the three counties who have to face both rate increases and worsening services due to Government policy on rate support grant. It is ludicrous that low-spending East Anglia should be at the top of the Government hit list, especially when pay levels are well below the national average and the number of pensioners is well above the national average and rising steadily. Despite a massive increase in the number of


people dependent on supplementary benefits, charges have been increased for home helps, day centres and meals on wheels and some counties actually charge people on supplementary benefit for the very services that enable them to live in their homes.
Many areas, such as Lowestoft, Great Yarmouth, Cromer and King's Lynn, are threatened not only with worsening bus services but with a total cut in the rail service under the Serpell recommendations, which have still not been repudiated by the Government. Perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to assure the House that the lines threatened—

Sir Anthony Fell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ennals: No, it is for the Minister to reply.

Sir Anthony Fell: The right hon. Gentleman's argument is mischievous.

Mr. Ennals: It is no such thing. In the debate on the Serpell report, in which I took part, the Minister excluded only one—the most extreme—of the six options. He did not exclude any of the remaining five, which would cut off Lowestoft, Great Yarmouth, Cromer and King's Lynn—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir A. Fell) wishes to intervene I shall be happy to give way—provided that the Minister wishes it, as it will be at his expense.
I accuse the Government of scurvy treatment of East Anglia and I call upon Ministers to take a new look at policies that are doing so much damage to our part of the country. I believe that the Conservatives will pay heavily for those policies, both in the May local government elections and in the general election, whenever it comes. I just wish that the Prime Minister would stop dithering and name the day so that we can go into battle.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Selwyn Gummer): We have heard a most curious contribution from the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals). Only by raising fears that he knew to be untrue could he find anything to support the motion. That has happened throughout the debate. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) was clearly unhappy at the role thrust upon him. At no stage did he mention any of the policies that his party put forward in its document "The New Hope For Britain". I look forward to reading his election address. I make just one prognostication. I predict that no part of that document, or any reference to it—certainly to any of the major Socialist policies in it —will appear in the hon. Gentleman's election address. At least three candidates in Ipswich will oppose that document. It may be difficult for the voters to choose between them, but I know who will win in the end. Representation in Ipswich will then return to where it should be.
The hon. Member for Ipswich referred to East Anglia as the gateway to Europe. The gate would certainly be slammed shut if Labour ever came to power. The hon. Gentleman said that he had opposed entry into the Common Market and had campaigned for a "no" vote in the referendum. I challenge him to tell us now that if by some accident, or through the activities of the SDP,

Labour returned to government, he would campaign within the Labour party and throughout the country for another referendum before the Labour Government took Britain out of Europe. The Labour party document suggests that there would be no such referendum, so the hon. Gentleman would not have the chance to campaign for a "no" vote. There would be no chance for him or for the people of East Anglia.
I can tell the House why the hon. Gentleman would not campaign on that aspect of Labour party policy, because he and I debated the matter on Anglia television and five juries in the East Anglian towns voted on whether Britain should come out of the Common Market. It is interesting to note that of those who declared themselves undecided at the outset and willing to decide on the basis of our debate—20 people in each of the five towns—82 voted to stay in the Common Market and only 18 voted for the hon. Gentleman's proposal.

Mr. Ennals: What about unemployment?

Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman seeks to intervene from a seated position after his very long speech — [Interruption.] It was almost exactly 20 minutes. I am coming to unemployment. Let us consider the extra unemployment that would be caused in East Anglia and throughout the country by taking Britain out of the European Community. The hon. Member for Ipswich well knows what the result would be, because on television he could not answer when asked where jobs would be found for the thousands of people in Norwich whose jobs now depend on exports to the EC.
Before the hon. Gentleman comes to the House with his day return knowledge of East Anglia—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) need not interrupt. He talked about farming from a railway carriage view. That is as much as he knows about the subject. We who live in and care about East Anglia do not care for propositions so devoid of truth as those put forward by the Opposition today.

Mr. John Garrett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Gummer: I do not have time to give way. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) has already taken 12 minutes of an East Anglian debate and I must cover the points advanced by the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South told us of the problems in Leiston in my constituency. The fact that he could not even pronounce the name showed how much he knew about it. He told us all about the impact of the Richard Garrett closure and about the job losses involved. He got the figures wrong, of course. [Interruption.] Moreover, he did not notice that some of the job losses were not in Leiston at all but in a factory 50 miles away. Nor did he mention what has happened since then. He did not mention the coming of S. and S. Engineering, which started off quite small, with about 90 jobs, and is now advertising for workers, which will result in a total of 140 jobs. He did not mention R. G. Cooper, a tiny firm, which has just landed a £500,000 order. I had something to do with its coming, which was because of the closure of Garretts. It came to Saxmundham which I should say, in case the geography of East Anglia defeats the hon. Gentleman, is only five miles from Leiston. With this large order and another which is in the pipeline, it hopes to get a new factory.
A whole series of other engineering businesses have opened in the Leiston area. We are not quite up to the number of jobs lost, but we are more than half way there. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Norwich, South laughs, but during his speech he did not laugh at all because he brought to the House the news of misery that he always brings and not a word of success. The hon. Gentleman does badly by East Anglia by constantly talking about the sad things and never about the major things. Where were the words about Stramit in my constituency? For the first time it has sold over £1 million worth of goods to China, the biggest order in an expanding industry, which will enable us to help the developing countries.
It is interesting to consider the developing countries. Did we hear all the comments about the shoe industry? I wonder whether the hon. Member for Norwich, South was in the House for the debate on the Brandt report. What he was proposing was that the countries which are poorer even than our own should not be able to export to us.

Mr. John Garrett: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman made a long speech. I am replying to the points that he made, and I shall continue to reply.
The hon. Gentleman went on to attack the roads programme. He said that the A11 should be upgraded and improved. That is precisely what is happening. Perhaps he has not recently travelled along the A11, which goes to Norwich. It is being upgraded at this moment. The bypass for Attleborough is under way. The line round Wymondham has been improved. This is what the Government are doing. When the Labour party talks about the problems of roads, is it not amazing that it should do so on the day on which the final part of the Ipswich by-pass has been announced? Did Opposition Members mention that about half the cost of the Orwell bridge has come from the European Community — the organisation of which they do not want us to be a member? No—because the motion has nothing to do with facts; it has to do with the desperation of Labour Members to attack the Government in every way they can, whether there is any reason for it or not. It reminds me of the gentleman at the beginning of "Wuthering Heights" who used to go through the Bible to pull all the promises to himself and fling all the curses at everyone else.
As for the contribution of the alliance, the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) will long rue the day that he suggested that the people of his constituency were not dynamic. That is a point which will be mentioned to him again and again when Hansard is read.

Mr. Freud: On a point of order. I have already corrected the fact that I said "dynamic" in the terms of this Prime Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member's constituents will be able to read what Hansard says.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) pointed out something which the Opposition had not mentioned — the major electrification plan of British Rail. How dare the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) talk about Serpell in that frightening manner, when the electrification plans are going ahead and when in my constituency the

most modern rural railway in England will be opened on the east Suffolk line? This is the line to Lowestoft, the very line he said was threatened. Perhaps he does not know that bit of geography because the line does not happen to go to Norwich.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge also rightly mentioned the survival of the village school. In my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), the Secretary of State for Education has decided to ask the local council to maintain two village schools because of our policy of ensuring that where possible the village school shall continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) rightly drew attention to the importance of technology and the science base of the East Anglian area. Was it not remarkable that Cambridgeshire had hardly a word from the hon. Member for Ipswich? There was no reference to the Cambridge science park and all the developments there, where the jobs of the future will be. Those are the jobs which we desperately need. What is the policy of the Labour party towards them? It is to tax all those new industries so heavily that they go out of business so as to steer industry—"steer" is the word in its plan—from East Anglia into the depressed regions. [Interruption.] If it does not say that, where else in the country are they going to steer them from but the dynamic, growing areas such as East Anglia?
Opposition Members said that it was most unfair that East Anglia was not doing as well as other regions. I hope that that has been discussed with Labour Members who represent the northern and the north-eastern regions and other development areas.
The real hypocrisy of the proposition in the motion is that both the right hon. Member for Norwich, North and the hon. Member for Ipswich sat quietly by during the years when the Labour Government took from the area and gave to the very areas they are complaining about. Year after year, the Labour Government redirected aid and the rate support grant from East Anglia to the areas containing Labour marginal seats. East Anglia becomes a part of their solicitude only when they are in opposition, never when they are in government. They do their cause no good by this transparent electioneering and trying to present what is untrue as the truth.
Although I do not wish to go too far in answering the hon. Member for Thurrock, I must point out, when she says that things have been bad in the past in East Anglia, on whose fringe her constituency sits, that the past is not just a Tory past but also a Labour past. If she thinks that East Anglia has not had what it might have had under a Conservative Government she should look at the record under Labour. It had the worst record of any area. That is why people did not vote them in. That is why there have been too few of them on the Opposition benches to contribute to the debate. The hon. Lady thought that she had better talk because there was no one else to talk.

Dr. McDonald: Rubbish.

Mr. Gummer: The fact remains that there is a particular problem in East Anglia. It is an area which was historically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) mentioned, on the way to nowhere, but now that has changed. In a real sense we are the most important centre in Britain for exports and


imports. We are that part of Britain which is helping to join the historic enemies in Europe. We are seeing the kind of growth and internationalism about which one once heard from the Labour party. Now it is left to us.
In reply to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge, we hope before the end of the month to be able to announce the criteria upon which free ports may be established. No doubt Felixstowe will put forward a good case. Those who have sat through the debate—they were fairly few on the Opposition Benches —will have clearly seen the distinction.
Those who drafted this preposterous motion have relied only on generalities, vague statements and partial knowledge of an area that has consistently refused to elect them. They relied not on the facts but on the principle that any mud can be thrown at us as long as there is a chance of some particle sticking. It would be much more sensible if the House took note of the debate and realised the facts of life and that East Anglia is a dynamic, growing area; that we have confidence in our future; that we are determined to see that there is a future and, therefore, we are determined to say to the Opposition, "Long may you reign in opposition," and to the Conservative party, "Long may you govern."

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 270.

Division No. 118]
[7 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)


Allaun, Frank
Dalyell, Tam


Alton, David
Davidson, Arthur


Anderson, Donald
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Deakins, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Dewar, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Dixon, Donald


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dobson, Frank


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Dormand, Jack


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Dubs, Alfred


Bidwell, Sydney
Duffy, A. E. P.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Eadie, Alex


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Eastham, Ken


Bradley, Tom
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
English, Michael


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Buchan, Norman
Evans, John (Newton)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Field, Frank


Campbell, Ian
Flannery, Martin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ford, Ben


Canavan, Dennis
Forrester, John


Cant, R. B.
Foster, Derek


Carmichael, Neil
Foulkes, George


Cartwright, John
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Freud, Clement


Clarke.Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Coleman, Donald
Ginsburg, David


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Golding, John


Cook, Robin F.
Graham, Ted


Cowans, Harry
Grant, John (Islington C)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Crowther, Stan
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hardy, Peter


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Harman, Harriet (Peckham)





Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Park, George


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Parker, John


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Parry, Robert


Heffer, Eric S.
Pavitt, Laurie


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Pendry, Tom


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Pitt, William Henry


Homewood, William
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hooley, Frank
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Race, Reg


Hoyle, Douglas
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


John, Brynmor
Robertson, George


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roper, John


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sandelson, Neville


Lambie, David
Sever, John


Lamond, James
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leighton, Ronald
Short, Mrs Renée


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius


Litherland, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Snape, Peter


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Soley, Clive


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Spearing, Nigel


McCartney, Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stallard, A. W.


McElhone, Mrs Helen
Steel, Rt Hon David


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stoddart, David


McKelvey, William
Strang, Gavin


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Straw, Jack


Maclennan, Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


McNally, Thomas
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


McNamara, Kevin
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


McTaggart, Robert
Tilley, John


McWilliam, John
Tinn, James


Marks, Kenneth
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Watkins, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Weetch, Ken


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Welsh, Michael


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
White, Frank R.


Maxton, John
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Mikardo, Ian
Whitlock, William


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wigley, Dafydd


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Winnick, David


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Woodall, Alec


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wright, Sheila


O'Brien, Oswald (Darlington)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Ogden, Eric



O'Halloran, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Neill, Martin
Mr. George Morton and


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Frank Haynes.


Palmer, Arthur



NOES


Adley, Robert
Berry, Hon Anthony


Aitken, Jonathan
Best, Keith


Alexander, Richard
Bevan, David Gilroy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Tom
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Aspinwall, Jack
Blackburn, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Blaker, Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th.E)
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bowden, Andrew


Banks, Robert
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Braine, Sir Bernard


Bendall, Vivian
Bright, Graham


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Brinton, Tim


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon






Brooke, Hon Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brotherton, Michael
Grist, Ian


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Grylls, Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hamilton, Hon A.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Buck, Antony
Hannam, John


Budgen, Nick
Haselhurst, Alan


Bulmer, Esmond
Hastings, Stephen


Burden, Sir Frederick
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Butcher, John
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayhoe, Barney


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Heddle, John


Chapman, Sydney
Henderson, Barry


Churchill, W. S.
Hicks, Robert


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hordern, Peter


Cockeram, Eric
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Cope, John
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Corrie, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Costain, Sir Albert
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cranborne, Viscount
Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman


Critchley, Julian
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dover, Denshore
Kaberry, Sir Donald


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Durant, Tony
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Eggar, Tim
Knox, David


Eyre, Reginald
Lamont, Norman


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lang, Ian


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Latham, Michael


Farr, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Fell, Sir Anthony
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lee, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Le Merchant, Spencer


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Forman, Nigel
Loveridge, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lyell, Nicholas


Fox, Marcus
Macfarlane, Neil


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
MacGregor, John


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Gardner, Sir Edward
Madel, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Major, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marland, Paul


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marlow, Antony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray


Gow, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grant, Sir Anthony
Mayhew, Patrick


Gray, Rt Hon Hamish
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Greenway, Harry
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Grieve, Percy
Moate, Roger


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Monro, Sir Hector





Montgomery, Fergus
Skeet, T. H. H.


Moore, John
Smith, Sir Dudley


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Speed, Keith


Mudd, David
Speller, Tony


Murphy, Christopher
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Neale, Gerrard
Sproat, Iain


Needham, Richard
Squire, Robin


Nelson, Anthony
Stainton, Keith


Neubert, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Newton, Tony
Stanley, John


Normanton, Tom
Steen, Anthony


Nott, Rt Hon Sir John
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Onslow, Cranley
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stokes, John


Osborn, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Parris, Matthew
Thompson, Donald


Pawsey, James
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Percival, Sir Ian
Thornton, Malcolm


Pink, R. Bonner
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pollock, Alexander
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Porter, Barry
Trippier, David


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Viggers, Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Waddington, David


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wakeham, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rathbone, Tim
Walker, B. (Perth)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Renton, Tim
Waller, Gary


Rhodes James, Robert
Walters, Dennis


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Ward, John


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


Rifkind, Malcolm
Watson, John


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wheeler, John


Rossi, Hugh
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rost, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Royle, Sir Anthony
Wickenden, Keith


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Wiggin, Jerry


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wilkinson, John


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)



Shepherd, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Carol Mather and


Sims, Roger
Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognizes that the prosperity of East Anglia depends on continued success in the Government's policies to keep down inflation and restore competitiveness to the economy, on the growth and development of small business upon whom many Government measure are concentrated, and on the further development of its highly productive agriculture within the Common Agricultural policy; and notes that in every respect the Labour Party's present policies would have a disastrous effect upon the region's considerable potential.

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair

Mr. Stanley Orme: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the deep crisis in the shipbuilding and ship repair industries which threatens thousands of jobs; condemns the failure of Her Majesty's Government to introduce policies to sustain and develop these vital strategic industries; recognises the anger felt throughout the United Kingdom at the decision by Cunard to refit the Cunard Countess in a foreign shipyard; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to change this decision and its policies for the industries.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I should announce at this stage that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Orme: It is a disgrace that again the Opposition have to force the Government to debate the shipbuilding and ship repair industries. Time and again we have had to bring to the attention of the House the Government's wilful neglect of this and many other basic industries. Now, as the crisis in our shipyards gathers pace, and as the jobs of many thousands of shipyard workers are at risk, the Opposition have to raise the matter. We have asked for a statement from the Government, but have not received one. We therefore make no apology for speaking on behalf of the workers and regions that will be so profoundly affected by any further cutbacks in this vital industry. When I say "regions", I am talking about the northern region, Scotland and Merseyside.
I also mention the lobby in which shipyard workers and local authorities took part today, in defence of the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries.

Mr. Mike Thomas: rose—

Mr. Orme: I shall give way a little later.
What is happening in shipbuilding is an indictment of the Government, their policies of neglect and indifference, and their complacency in the face of the industrial devastation that they have caused. We are told that another 9,000 are to be added to the 10,000 workers who lost their jobs in the shipbuilding industry last year. At the Harland and Wolff shipyard, another 700 redundancies have been announced, on top of the 1,000 job cuts announced last year, and short-time working is to be introduced in that yard from July.
The story is the same throughout British Shipbuilders, where 25,000 jobs have been lost overall. In Tyne and Wear, 20,000 people are employed in the shipbuilding industry, representing 15 per cent. of all manufacturing jobs in the country. It has been estimated that for every job in the shipyards there are three indirect jobs in subcontracting and servicing industries. So it is not a matter of isolated shipyards in different parts of the United Kingdom; manufacturing units in Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow and everywhere else are affected.
Since 1977, British Shipbuilders have cut 7,750 jobs in Tyne and Wear, the most recent being the 1,200 at Tyne Ship Repair. Currently, there are about 5,000 former shipyard workers without jobs in the county.

Mr. Mike Thomas: rose—

Mr. Orme: Very well, I shall give way now.

Mr. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman will know, like many of his colleagues, that I represent a constituency

with two shipyards, one of which has been put on a care and maintenance basis, and that unemployment in shipyard areas exceeds 50 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman was not involved, but perhaps he can explain why SDP Members who attended what was supposed to be an all-party lobby — to which the right hon. Gentleman referred earlier—to support the cause of the shipyard workers, were abused by the chairman and also denied the right to speak to the lobby? Is it not an improper use of ratepayers' money to spend money on promoting a lobby for Labour party purposes rather than for shipyard purposes?

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman is abusing the time of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham), who is to reply to the debate for the Opposition, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) did not address the lobby. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must fight this battle somewhere else. I want to continue this serious debate.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: rose—

Mr. Orme: Let us continue this serious debate, because we are worried about jobs in a vital industry. We must tackle the problem together.
When I referred to Tyne and Wear, I said that 5,000 shipyard workers are without jobs in the county. Nevertheless, a further 1,600 redundancies are being sought there—960 at Swan Hunter, 415 at Sunderland Shipbuilders, and 200 at Austin and Pickersgill. With unemployment running at 15·1 per cent. in north Tyneside and 19·6 per cent. in Sunderland, any further reductions in jobs will have serious implications for the local economy.
In Scotland in the Strathclyde region 21,000 people are employed in shipbuilding and marine engineering and thousands more are dependent on those industries. In the Inverclyde district it is estimated that 51 per cent. of all manufacturing employment is in the shipyards. More than 5,000 jobs have been lost throughout Strathclyde in recent years. Any further reduction in the industry, especially at Scott Lithgow and Govan shipbuilders would have serious consequences for the two local communities where unemployment is presently standing at 16·6 per cent. in Inverclyde and on average about 19·5 per cent. in Govan.
About 1,400 jobs at Cammell Laird on Merseyside are under threat. The House does not need to be reminded about the unemployment problems of Merseyside. Even this Government have been forced to recognise them. Despite the potential devastation that further redundancies may cause, there appears to be no guarantee that these latest proposals represent the final cut in manpower, and further reductions could be sought.
While all this has been taking place, the Government's so-called policy of non-intervention has allowed crucial orders to be placed overseas. First, there was the scandal of the Atlantic Conveyor order that provoked such an outcry that the Government were forced to ensure that it was placed with a British yard. Then came the Central Electricity Generating Board's cable-laying vessel. That order went to Korea. The Cunard Countess is the most recent ship to cause controversy. It is unbelievable that this Government can accept that this work should not be given to a British yard. The workers in British Shipbuilders were skilled, competent and hardworking enough to prepare in


record time the ships sent to the Falklands last year. Are we now to believe that those same workers could not fulfil such an order? It is nonsense. The Government must intervene. They must not stand by and watch as British industry falls apart while orders go to Korea, Malta or elsewhere.
I say to the chairman of Trafalgar House, that great patriot who is in control of the Daily Express, that if Lord Beaverbrook were alive today and saw what was happening in Britain he would be astounded at the action of Lord Matthews.
In the past five years 56 per cent. of domestic orders have gone overseas. Hon. Members should compare that with the position in West Germany, which builds 82 per cent. of its own ships, while Italy builds 98 per cent. and Japan 100 per cent.
Following nationalisation, British Shipbuilders, the trade unions and the Labour Government evolved a corporate plan for the industry based on a changed market and world situation that would set the core needs so that Britain would have a potentially viable industry for the future. The plan was based on the knowledge that any capacity below 420,000 tonnes would not be sufficient to support a viable industry. This figure was confirmed by the present chairman of British Shipbuilders on 13 December last as the corporation's minimum capacity level. The target for the industry has therefore been established and accepted and requires the continuation of the existing yards and labour force.
The recent announcement of a further reduction in the work force with a threat of two major and four smaller yards being completely out of work by the end of 1983 would mean the complete destruction of the corporate plan and of the merchant side of the shipbuilding industry.
The intervention fund and the negotiations with the European Community no longer offer any viable options. To save the shipbuilding industry, emergency help is needed from the Government now and must be spread over the next two years. The Opposition expect the Minister to address himself to that crucial subject. Without that help, the capacity to produce merchant shipping will have gone.
British Shipbuilders has kept within its cash limits in the past three years, its productivity is equal to anywhere in Europe and it has invested more than £35 million in a computerised programme that is to be introduced during the next three years and will make it as competitive as any company in the world.
The future of the British shipbuilding and ship repair industry is at stake. The Government have previously been asked if they are prepared to see Britain lose its shipbuilding capacity completely or whether they would be prepared to take the necessary measures to ensure its continuance. The Government may not be concerned about the loss of jobs and attendant skills, but surely even they can recognise the need for a shipbuilding and ship repair industry capable of contributing towards the security of the nation.
The Government's complete lack of a maritime strategy is all too glaring. We are a maritime nation and must remain so. Britain needs a fundamental shipbuilding and ship repair industry. While other countries invest in and protect their shipbuilding and ship repair interests, this Government sit back and let ours die. Japan gives its domestic owners credit on 90 per cent. of a home built vessel's price spread over 12 years at low interest rates.
Lloyd's List today, as the Minister has probably seen, says:
Japanese yards say prices are 15 per cent. below cost".
So much for market forces within Japan, which is so often held up as the paragon of an advanced capitalist state. If Japan is underwriting its industry to that tune, the House has a duty to protect Britain's industry. Can any hon. Member see the French, Americans or Japanese allowing their industries to disappear before their eyes? The only action that this Government have taken in four years has been to pave the way for the privatisation of British Shipbuilders. They offer no suggestions, and advance no policies that will contribute to the survival of our shipbuilding industry. The Labour Opposition have these policies. We completely oppose any attempt to privatise British Shipbuilders and we will, as the next Government, reverse any such action. Like every other shipbuilder in the world, British Shipbuilders is wholly dependent on Government aid for its survival. As a matter of urgency, Government aid should be increased in the short term.
A scrap and build programme must be introduced without delay, which would make a massive contribution towards the present imbalance in demand and supply in shipping. Combined with a more limited new building programme, the contraction in shipbuilding worldwide could be eased.
Having talked to British Shipbuilders I know that it considers that in one or two years' time the chances of new orders and fresh building will be of no use if the yards that exist have been destroyed.
I know that many of my hon. Friends want to take part in this short but important debate. We demand some answers from the Government. The country can no longer afford to be fobbed off with the platitudes that we continually hear from Ministers. Those answers must be followed immediately by action to save the British shipbuilding and ship repair industry from complete collapse. I repeat that we need emergency help now, linked to the next two years. We are very much at the crossroads. Without action now the future will be very bleak not only for British Shipbuilders but for British industry and British people.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
recognises the serious problems facing the United Kingdom shipbuilding and ship repair industries; welcomes Her Majesty's Government's measures to sustain these industries and to encourage them to compete effectively in international markets; and condemns the Opposition's policies as entirely unrealistic and likely to undermine the long term objective of securing soundly based United Kingdom shipbuilding and ship repair industries.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has made a sombre and serious speech, and I do not deny that the situation facing the British Shipbuilding industry is extremely serious. Indeed, I am glad to have this opportunity to make clear the Government's concern. The Government recognise that British Shipbuilders, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, is a very important, large-scale employer in many of the regions that are already hard pressed by high unemployment. There may be points of disagreement between the right hon. Gentleman and me,


but there is no disagreement between us about the seriousness of the situation. Indeed, Sir Robert Atkinson has made that same point forcefully in recent weeks, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I met Sir Robert this morning to discuss plans for the future.
I want to respond seriously to the points that the right hon. Member for Salford, West has raised and to reply to his points about the Cunard Countess order. I shall set out the facts of that case, but it is important, first, that the House should understand the background to the situation now facing United Kingdom shipbuilding. The market for merchant ships slumped in 1982 to a level equivalent to about half the available world capacity. We all know what is happening to freight rates and new orders. More that 80 million deadweight tonnes of shipping— equivalent to 1,460 ships, including 348 bulk carriers and 355 tankers —are currently laid up. That amount of laid-up tonnage is equivalent to two years' world output at present levels. With such an overhang of capacity, it is extremely unlikely that the expected upturn in world trade will have any impact on the market for new ships until about 1985 or 1986.
I stress that the crisis in merchant shipbuilding is not confined to the United Kingdom. World wide, new orders fell by one third in 1982. The total world order book is the lowest since 1978, and much of that order book is due for delivery in the next 12 months. Yards are in difficulties throughout the world. Major Japanese yards—to which the right hon. Member for Salford, West referred—have recently been ordered by their Government to cut output to 74 per cent. of capacity. As anybody who reads Lloyd's List will know, the difficulties that British Shipbuilders faces, and that the right hon. Gentleman has described, are paralleled in yards in Germany, Holland, Sweden, France and Italy.
The market for ship repair has also been depressed for several years, partly as a result of changes in transport technology, of which containerisation is the most obvious example. However, the main problem for the ship repair industry has been the worldwide recession in shipping. There has been a marked contraction in ship repair in this country. Some firms have greatly improved their competitiveness, but it remains to be seen how far they will be successful in regaining lost markets.
The world shipbuilding industry is suffering from vast over-capacity. Even now, some newly industrialising countries are adding to that capacity. We have deplored the expansion of shipbuilding capacity in Korea in a period in which the shipbuilding industry worldwide has been in almost continuous crisis. Any decision to add to capacity at this stage harms the interest of the world's shipbuilding community as a whole, and we, along with other countries in the EC, have been strongly critical.
As I have said, Japan has agreed to reduce its capacity, but we remain concerned that Japan continues to take a disproportionate share of world orders. Within the OECD we and our European partners have kept up strong pressure for Japan to exercise restraint in shipbuilding activities in the spirit of OECD resolutions to which Japan is a party. However, hon. Members must be clear about why far eastern yards are so competitive. In large part their success is due to the substantial advantages that can be found in

having established new, modern industries from scratch and to having efficient working practices, low labour costs and a highly disciplined labour force.

Dr. John Cunningham: How can the Minister talk about being competitive when, as Lloyd's List has told us, the Japanese admit that prices are 15 per cent. below cost? Is that competitive?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman should not think that British Shipbuilders has not also been quoting below cost. The intervention fund is specifically designed to enable British Shipbuilders to quote below cost. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman if he is saying that shipbuilding worldwide is a business in which Government and subsidies are involved. I have never disagreed with him about that. However, the hon. Gentleman has got us nowhere merely by quoting that article in Lloyd's List. Indeed I noticed that that article also said that Japanese yards could not continue for long with the prices currently pertaining in the market for their ships.

Dr. John Cunningham: It is not good enough for the Minister to lecture shipyard workers in this country about productivity and competitiveness and to say in the next breath that he acknowledges that market forces are not operating worldwide.

Mr. Lamont: With great respect, that does not follow. Subsidies pervade the shipbuilding market worldwide. However, it is also true that we must have regard to our competitiveness and productivity. The fact that there are subsidies among our competitors does not mean that we need not try to attain the same productivity levels as them. Our productivity levels are clearly below those of the far eastern yards. The chairman of British Shipbuilders would not disagree with that.
The effects of far eastern competition are felt throughout Europe. I stress that we must find a solution through a Community-wide policy. We operate within the framework of an EC directive on shipbuilding. At present, member states are by no means agreed on a common line on a subsidy regime for shipbuilding. The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) is a reader of Lloyd's List and he will know that the Government of Germany have rejected a plea from the Hamburg yards for more subsidy, on the ground that the industry must become more competitive, have more flexible working practices and increase productivity. Therefore, it will not be easy to obtain an agreed EC line. However, I stress that a solution must be found within an EC regime.
Although Opposition Members may regret that, they should remember that there would be no point in having unilateral subsidies. That would simply be self-defeating. As long as the whole world shipbuilding market is dominated by subsidies, that will encourage over-capacity and drive down prices still further. The combination of depressed world markets and fierce competition has brought the corporation acute difficulties. I know that further redundancies within the industry will have a severe effect on regions in which unemployment is already very high. As I have said, Sir Robert called on me this morning to discuss the corporation's most recent assessment of its prospects. It is no secret, and I do not conceal from the House, that his assessment is that the prospects are grim. Obviously, the Government agree with that.
British Shipbuilders reported in December that its losses for the first half of 1982–83 were £28 million. Sir Robert has warned me that losses for the second half of the year will be very much worse.
Against this background, I told Sir Robert that the Government recognise the difficult market situation that British Shipbuilders faces. I told him that we would give his ideas—he has put some specific ideas to me—on help for the industry the most careful and sympathetic consideration. Of course, British Shipbuilders already receives substantial support. Any further support has to be or might be at the expense of other deserving industries. All money comes from taxpayers and other industries. It would certainly not be in our interest to trigger off a subsidy race among the shipbuilding nations. I can assure the House that, in considering Sir Robert's proposals, we shall bear clearly in mind both our commitment to the industry and the importance we attach to a viable United Kingdom shipbuilding industry with a long-term future.
The Government have made massive support available to the shipbuilding industry. The scale of the support that we have provided is not acknowledged by Opposition Members. An estimate of the cost of support for jobs in the merchant shipbuilding division alone is that in recent years it has amounted to £7,000 to £8,000 per job per year. That is a generous level of support and goes way beyond that given to many other industries.
As I have made clear to the House before, this represents a continuing commitment. We accept that merchant shipbuilding will need some support for the foreseeable future. We have provided levels of capital expenditure very much higher—four times higher—than the level prevailing when we came to office. Investment under the previous Government was scarcely enough to meet the necessary requirements for health and safety and vital maintenance. This year we have approved £90 million of capital expenditure. This also compares favourably with the levels of investment in the Japanese industry—around £1,400 per man is going into British Shipbuilders compared with £800 to £900 per man in Japan. That is not mere replacement investment but includes, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, investment in computer-aided design facilities. It also includes the development at Barrow of facilities to build nuclear submarines which, at about £200 million, will be the largest single investment ever undertaken by the corporation.
While British Shipbuilders has been operating in difficult markets, Opposition Members should acknowledge, as the corporation and Sir Robert have acknowledged, that it still has some way to go to improve productivity. Of course there have been improvements — real improvements — in the past two years but productivity has still not yet reached pre-nationalisation levels. British Shipbuilders estimates far eastern productivity to be two to two and a half times greater than its own. I recognise that it is difficult for British Shipbuilders to make progress in the present circumstances. We have acted to meet British Shipbuilders' particular needs this year. We have increased the EFL from £122 million to £160 million. The Government do not have an inflexible approach. We recognise the seriousness of the situation and we are prepared to respond to it, but we cannot simply go down the road of an unlimited subsidy race.
Despite the large sums of money going into shipbuilding, the severity of the current recession has prompted calls from Opposition Members for more help for the shipbuilding industry. It is alleged that we are not providing as much support as other nations do. It is extremely difficult to measure one country's aid against another, but I have observed that people sometimes overstate other countries' support and understate our own. In some countries—for example, Belgium and Denmark —it is true that shipbuilding credit schemes are more favourable than in Britain but their credit, unlike ours, is in principle available for purchases in any EC country and not just home yards. We take the view that it may be possible to improve credit arrangements for the British shipbuilding industry.
Ideas have been and are being put forward for improving the package available to British shipowners. I would not wish to rule out the possibility of extra help in that direction. One idea is that, like the Danish example, to which I have already referred, we might have more generous credit terms for purchase, provided that it was restricted to purchase in EC yards and not just home yards. If it could be demonstrated that that would result in more orders from British owners being placed in British yards, it might be worth considering.
I have discussed a number of ideas with the General Council of British Shipping. In those discussions, shipowners made clear to me the value that they attach to retaining the maximum freedom to order new ships on commercially advantageous terms. I stress that we are open to suggestions that can reconcile the interests of shipping and shipbuilding. We would welcome ideas that would serve the interests of both.

Mr. Orme: The Minister has informed the House that he met Sir Robert Atkinsom this morning and, as he is aware, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) and I also met him. Sir Robert did not go into the details of what he put forward to the Government. The Government have a responsibility to tell the House what the proposals are and whether the Government are prepared to accept them.

Mr. Lamont: I do not want to go into details, for two reasons. First, Sir Robert put forward a series of options that we wish to consider and, secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, our aid for shipbuilding operates within an international framework and has to be approved by the EC. We wish to consider the options that have been put forward.
The Government are prepared to consider ideas that would serve the needs both of shipping and shipbuilding but we must pay proper attention to the needs of the shipping industry as well. The shipping industry is large and vital and employs 71,000 seagoing staff compared to the 18,000 people employed by merchant shipbuilding. Shipping has contributed more than £700 million to the balance of payments. It is an extremely important British industry and we must be careful not to damage one important industry in our attempts to help another.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Has the General Council of British Shipping advocated the idea of a scrap and build programme, or does it argue that the fleet is so modern that such an idea is irrelevant?

Mr. Lamont: I speak from memory but I do not think that it has supported the idea of scrap and build. It has put


forward several ideas, in particular for capital allowances, which have been its main concern. I do not think that the General Council of British Shipping has supported the idea of scrap and build.
I should like to refer to scrap and build and to the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman about United Kingdom fleet orders. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the proportion of orders placed by the British fleet in British yards compared with what pertains in other parts of Europe. It must be remembered that the United Kingdom fleet is the second largest in the Community. It is three times as large as that of Germany, twice as large as those of France and Italy and four times as large as that of the Netherlands. The right hon. Gentleman does not compare like with like because our fleet is so much larger in relation both to our total economy and to our shipbuilding industry.
In 1982, our industry received orders amounting to 231,000 gross registered tonnage from the home industry. The relative size of our merchant fleet compared with the fleets of other countries is also a measure of how much more important shipping is to our economy than it is to other EC economies. For that reason, we have a good deal more to lose than they would have if we were to interfere with the legitimate commercial wishes of our shipowners.

Mr. Donald Stewart: How can the Minister make that confident assertion about the size of the merchant fleet, when it has shrunk 50 per cent. in the last six years?

Mr. Lamont: It has shrunk, but my confident assertion is based on fact.
The right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) asked about scrap and build. It is an idea which he has supported, but we remain sceptical about scrap and build as a means of helping either shipbuilding or shipping. The case usually advanced is that it would help to remove surplus capacity and at the same time create new work for shipbuilding. At present there is a great deal of scrapping going on worldwide in the industry. If scrap and build were to be of any use, it must be demonstrated that shipowners would not be paid for scrapping vessels that would have been scrapped anyway.
As for scrap and build encouraging the construction of new vessels, we might end up simply worsening the existing surplus capacity in shipping and prolonging the adjustment process to which we must face up. It is not even clear that scrap and build would help to modernise the United Kingdom industry, as 70 per cent. of the dry cargo fleet in the United Kingdom is under 10 years old, compared with only 54 per cent. for the world fleet as a whole.
We must also take account of the effect that any scrap and build policy might have on scrap prices. If the effect were simply to depress scrap prices, we might, paradoxically, find that the intended effect of the policy was actually the opposite and that by driving down scrap prices, we were creating a disincentive rather than an incentive for scrapping older ships. Therefore, we remain sceptical, and that position is taken by our EC partners; this matter was discussed with them at the EC council.
There is deep disappointment and regret that British yards have been unable to do the refit of the Cunard Countess in time for the ship to sail on time and meet her

commitments. However, there are certain facts to which I must draw the attention of hon. Members. First, the Countess was built in Denmark, not in Britain; it operates exclusively in the Caribbean; its home is in Puerto Rico; and it has never been to the United Kingdom.
Secondly, in respect of the commercial refitting of the Countess—that represents the bulk of the work to be done—the Government have no power, regardless of their views, to direct Cunard to have the work carried out in the United Kingdom. The suggestion that somehow the Government have an option to order Cunard to have the refitting done in the United Kingdom, and for the Government to pay any necessary compensation to Cunard, just does not exist; the Government have no such power.
Much has been said about obligations. The Government believe that they should live up to their obligations. The Government initially undertook to return the ship by 7 May 1983 but Cunard was persuaded to accept an extension to 9 July, when it must meet its obligations to passengers who have booked with the company. The Government therefore accepted an obligation to return the ship by 9 July and were determined to fulfill that obligation.
There would have been no problem if the refitting work could have been done in that time by United Kingdom yards. Cunard for that reason had discussions with three yards to try to do just that. What concerned Cunard above all was to get the ship back on time, and it was that which none of the yards could offer. To meet its obligations, Cunard reluctantly had to look elsewhere.
It has been suggested that the Government could perhaps have insisted that at least the MOD element of the refit could have been carried out in the United Kingdom. But that could not have been done in time for Cunard to meet its commitments to its customers. The last thing Cunard wanted was to invoke penalty clauses. The company did not want compensation. It wanted its ship. It has commercial commitments to meet — customers with bookings—and the ship was needed to meet them.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West seems to dismiss that as just a minor detail—too bad if Cunard does not have its ship—but what would his answer be to those who work on the ship who might find themselves with no work, those who might lose their jobs in the future because of the loss of goodwill? What would the right hon. Gentleman tell those people? Once does not eradicate lack of competitiveness in one company by creating it in another.

Mr. Orme: Perhaps the Minister will say what British Shipbuilders thinks about the job going to Malta and whether British Shipbuilders believes it can be done within the timescale. It does not believe it can be done.

Mr. Lamont: British Shipbuilders did not wish to pay the penalty clauses and did not think it was a good commercial risk for it to run. For both British Shipbuilders and the Government together to have incurred the extra costs—the penalty clauses if the work was late and the other penalties which would have been incurred for the late delivery back of the ship—might have doubled the cost of the contract.
It is all very well for the Opposition to jump up and down whenever an order goes overseas, but there is an important question here which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to answer. In the unlikely event of a future


Labour Government, is he prepared to give an assurance that if any British shipyard or British company cannot match the price or delivery date of its overseas competitors, that Administration will always step in and subsidise the lack of competitiveness? If so, will he then explain what incentive there is for British firms to be competitive?
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to public sector orders. As he knows, the Government have a public sector purchasing policy. It is not a crude "Buy British" policy, but a policy which asks that the nationalised industries, the public sector, should use their purchasing power constructively for the advantage of British industry and should be mindful of the consequences of their purchasing decisions. Overwhelmingly the public sector buys British and places its orders for ships in British yards. At present, there are two Sealink ferries and a dredger for the Mersey docks being completed; a ship for Cable and Wireless worth £18 million; a research ship for the Natural Environment Research Council; and an accommodation rig for the BGC Morecambe field worth about £20 million.
The Government recognise that we must use public sector purchasing power in a constructive way to help our shipbuilding industry to become competitive. We recognise that the industry is in a state of crisis, along with the rest of western Europe. This is not a crisis which has suddenly arisen, nor one confined to the United Kingdom. The Government have supported, are supporting and will continue to support British Shipbuilders. We have already put some £600 million into the industry. As I said, investment is running at four times the level it was under our predecessors.
The right hon. Gentleman put forward some ideas as alternative policies, but in my view they are dead-end policies. Any hope that nationalisation could shield the industry from the worldwide crisis has proved hollow, as we on these Benches always knew it would. The industry may be nationalised, but it must still operate in world markets. I read that the Labour party is now proposing that there should be a nationalised shipping organisation, a captive customer for a nationalised shipbuilding industry.
Labour Members will be in danger of wrecking an industry that is a major employer and a major contributor to Britain's balance of payments. Their only answer seems to be unlimited subsidies—at least, they seem unlimited because they are unquantified. The idea that salvation for British shipbuilding can lie in some form or other of the famous, or infamous, Polish contract is madness. The total cost to the taxpayer of the Polish contract was more than £72 million— a disaster for the taxpayer and for the shipping industry because we subsidised ships in our yards to compete with British ships sailing the world.
We recognise and acknowledge the industry's problems. We shall continue to help, and we are determined to get the industry on a secure commercial footing which will offer the best prospects for the industry and those who work in it. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the Opposition's motion and to support the Government's amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that in the two hours that remain many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. Therefore, I ask for brief contributions, please.

8 pm

Mr. Frederick Willey: I am anxious to speak, for two reasons. First, we had a deputation from Tyne and Wear this afternoon. Many friends of mine were there. Secondly, I have made representations with deputations from the Sunderland War for Work board. This is important. This is not only an industrial problem; it is a social problem. We in Sunderland are now in the position that we were in in the early 1930s. We are having successive waves of redundancies in a town that already has one in four of its men unemployed. There are wards—I could call them the shipyard wards—in my constituency with 40 to 50 per cent. unemployed. Unemployment will soon become unbearable. Something must be done. I can say the same about the national problem. If we consider the figures for British shipping as well as those for British shipbuilding we see their crucial importance to Britain. If we are not careful we shall lose our independence and security.
Following a recent deputation to the chairman of British Shipbuilders I raised four matters with the Secretary of State. The first point that we raised was that, as the cable ship is being built in Korea and not in Sunderland Shipbuilders—no one will deny that that was a muddle — we should have a formulation of procedures for placing such orders abroad. We have heard the Minister's comments on that but the Secretary of State was a little more direct. He said that we cannot compel the public sector to buy British. That will not do. If he wants to tell anybody he should tell the Prime Minister; he should not tell me.
We have had an account of the matters relating to the Cunard Countess. I cannot deal with all the details but if we compare Britain with our competitors—the Japanese and Europe — we know that we are in a pathetic position. We need more competent people who can devise matters to ensure that we hold the work in Britain.
Secondly, we asked for action on Korean prices. The Secretary of State's reply was that the OECD has an initiative to open a dialogue with Korea and he said that he will maintain a firm and positive approach. Again, I am afraid that is not good enough. Britain improved its selling prices and in 1981–82 it nearly attained viability. But then there was the further recession and a 30 per cent. fall in orders, when orders fell as low as they were in 1978.
What do we do? We must look at the far east. It is no good regarding the far east as unimportant any longer. Japan has more than half of the present production and Korea has 10 per cent. four times as much as we have. Sunderland once had a shipyard that could always outdo the Japanese in skill and ability but it has gone. It had that ability because of good management. It was an old yard. It had exceptional difficulties but it had good management. When we compare ourselves with the far east we must recognise, as the Minister did, that it reduced prices by 30 per cent. With 60 per cent. of the market, it had every reason to hold it. That is what it did. Japan is now retaliating against the Koreans. It is saying that it will extend automation to push out the Koreans.
The Secretary of State's reply will not do. We must be tough. Not only Britain but all Europe must be tough. We must tell the Koreans that we shall boycott them because they artificially increased the capacity of world shipbuilding at a time when it was already in difficulties and they are selling ships at artificial prices to hold the


market. We must tell them—and the Europeans—that we shall not tolerate that. It is about time that we were bold enough to take such action.
The third matter that we raised was the need for immediate temporary inducements to United Kingdom shipowners to place orders in British yards. The Secretary of State, the Minister, called our attention to credit guarantee and the intervention fund. But he went on to say, rather bluntly, that he did not really see the scope for providing yet more incentives. Like the Minister, I appreciate what has been done, but, again, that reply will not do because of the special difficulties that we are in. We are dealing with the survival of the shipbuilding industry —certainly that of merchant shipbuilding. If the Minster wishes to call in aid Lloyd's, I agree with Lloyd's. It has said that the outlook is gloomy and will continue so for a further one and a half to two years — about the same forecast as the Minister of State gave.
We feel particularly strongly in Sunderland because we have lost work to Harland and Wolff. We are sorry that Harland and Wolff has lost a further 700 jobs, but Sunderland lost a domestic order that it had always had, for political reasons. When Mr. Parker went to Harland and Wolff he was able to satisfy the Government that his claim to that work should be recognised.
What do we do? We shall discuss the depreciation allowances in the Finance Bill. I agree that there will be difficulty with the industry and the EC. I suggest, as I have suggested before, particularly in view of the Falklands experience, that it would be simple and easy to build for stock. We could set up an agency to organise that and allow it, if it wishes, to lease the shipping. That would be a limited proposition. Therefore, one would have no more in mind than providing for 18 months to two years, and having the disposal of the ships determined by the return of normality to shipping.
The fourth point that we raised was that provision should be made in the industry for job security. We did so because the chairman of British Shipbuilders said that jobs should be put before wages. It was not for us to deal with such matters, but for management and employees. If we are going to deal with wages in an industry that has dropped from third to 19th place in the league table in a short time, and if two major yards are to be mothballed, we must do something to achieve stability in the industry. That is why we have put forward that possibility. Mothballing is just another term for closures.
The time that we are dealing with is 12 to 18 months. This is a complex and difficult matter, but all that the Secretary of State said was that secure jobs are to be found only in fully competitive firms. I expected a better response. The unions and management are discussing the matter now. I should have thought that we should try to find an alternative to redundancy, which erodes the industry. The Secretary of State is a nice chap, but if that is the way in which he approaches four of the problems affecting shipbuilding, it is time that he gave up. We want someone who is much more practical and able to deal with the problems.
There is only one solution to the present difficulties in shipbuilding. There is only one lifeline. It is orders and nothing else. We must get the orders. We can do what we like, but if we do not have the orders, we cannot restore the yards to stability. Some yards will be entirely out of

work within a few months. I can refer only to our yards. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) will agree with me. There is an Ethiopian order for a couple of ships. This is an illustration of the difficulties. My hon. Friend and I met the Minister for Trade months ago, and he approved the contract, but it has taken a long time to get it through.
We need the Mexican orders. There have been renegotiations over a couple of ships. There are difficulties about guarantees, but they must be met. I intervened in a debate in which my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) spoke just before the recess. The Under-Secretary of State for Industry tells me that he hopes that there will be a successful conclusion. I am hoping for that too. If the Under-Secretary of State can be so hopeful, we have every reason to be hopeful.
There are also Swedish orders for a couple of oil-drilling support ships. I do not know whether the information is right, but I am told that we have a good chance of getting those orders and that we virtually have them. There are also Indian orders for oil rig ships. A while ago the Minister for Overseas Development told us that it was likely that Sunderland would get some of the work. I should like to know how likely that still is.
There is also a possibility of orders from Bangladesh and, less possibly, orders from Burma. That is a good report. I am depressed about shipbuilding, particularly in Sunderland, but I believe that the problem can be solved. If one could solve the problem in Sunderland, one could probably solve it in the rest of the shipbuilding industry. We should get some of those orders. If it is necessary, we should make up by building for stock. That can be done. The issue is one of survival. However, we can say that there is real hope. I hope that before long the Government will take courage and see that we get those orders and that, if necessary, there is building for stock.

Sir David Price: I am conscious of your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be brief. Many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate so, if the House will forgive me, I shall address myself to a few points at a gallop.
I am sure that the House will agree with the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that the basic need is for more orders. We can leave all the history for our lectures on other occasions. I have brilliant notes here, but I shall forbear from developing them to the House. I think that the House will also agree with me that there are basically two broad markets for ships. The first is the military market and the second is the civilian one. The House will further agree that the Government have a good deal more power and influence over the former than the latter. That is common ground between us all.
The Royal Navy is overwhelmingly the principal customer for our naval ships. Although four good orders were announced before Christmas for new fighting ships, they are not sufficient to fill our naval shipbuilding yards. I have a special interest in the fortunes of the Vosper Thornycroft yard. It is tempting for me to dilate on the great merits of that yard, but in the interests of brevity I shall not develop the reasons why I think it is an extremely good yard. I shall assume the assent of the House that Vosper Thornycroft is an extremely good yard.
My next question may be relevant to the questions of other hon. Members who wish to intervene in the debate.


What has happened to the Carrington statement, as it is known in the industry, of 23 July 1973, in which this was said:
I have, therefore, decided that in order to preserve this special capacity in the three firms which have built it up in recent years, Messrs. Vickers, Yarrow and Vosper Thornycroft, we must concentrate future warship orders for the Royal Navy increasingly on these firms. This will mean that the scope for placing competitive contracts for warships will be considerably reduced; however, the three firms have promised their full cooperation in ensuring that we continue to receive full value for money."—[Official Report, 23 July 1973; Vol. 860, c. 306.]
That broad policy injunction has never been rescinded. I should like the Minister to confirm that that is so when he winds up. Why were two orders for frigates placed with Swan Hunter before Christmas? I do not object to the orders going to Swan Hunter from the point of view of regional employment but that order makes nonsense of the Carrington policy.
What is the position within British Shipbuilders? It has a coherent warship division which, if it is to remain a coherent division, should tender for the division as a whole and get sales for it; but the present policy of the Ministry of Defence is to ask each individual yard to tender. I am not clear about that. There seems to be a conflict between a centralised model for British Shipbuilders — the parameters are well known to the House—and a highly decentralised model, with each yard being its own profit centre and having control of most of its profits and investments. British Shipbuilders seems to be falling between these two stools. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain these arrangements because it is of great interest to the House, particularly those of us who have warship builders in or near our constituencies.
Merchant shipping prospects rest with the home side and the overseas side. With regard to the former, I hope that the House accepts that a depressed British Merchant Navy cannot order many ships from anyone. I remind the House that our Merchant Navy has halved between 1975 and the beginning of this year. The House is familiar with the figures so I shall not detain it by quoting them unless I am challenged to do so. That halving is part of the general recession in world shipping.
It is not, therefore, surprising that we learn from the General Council of British Shipping that in 1982, the British merchant shipping industry ordered only 318,000 deadweight tonnes worldwide—that is the equivalent of one ultra large crude carrier—and 75 per cent. of those orders were placed in United Kingdom yards. The scale is so small, however, that it has not made a great contribution to the shipbuilding industry. Indeed, by comparison, United Kingdom owners ordered 10 million deadweight tonnes worldwide in 1973. That is 30 times as much as last year. The House must face up to that. As long as our Merchant Navy is depressed—although we are not debating the Merchant Navy we must refer to the depression in merchant shipping — it is not able, no matter how much it wants to, to modernise and to place new orders.
The General Council of British Shipping supported by British Shipbuilders has asked for major tax concessions. The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) mentioned that. No doubt we will have an opportunity during the later stages of the Finance Bill to discuss it in detail. Today, my hon. Friend the Minister advanced other possibilities. I shall be interested to hear them developed further and the reaction from British shipowners. Unless

something is done, the Merchant Navy will slowly float away. It is as simple as that. That brings me to the export possibilities of British Shipbuilders.
Every hon. Member 'who has spoken in our recent debates recognises that fair competition barely exists in the world. No doubt the figures that the Government have quoted in answer to parliamentary questions and in evidence to the Select Committee are accurate in so far as they deal with the official statistics. However, many of us are aware of what happens in practice. If a yard in another country really wants to win an order, it goes out and gets it irrespective of the price.
I have examples, with which I shall not weary the House, when par for the course has been taken as the Japanese price and other countries, especially Korea., say that whatever the Japanese offer they will come in below it, irrespective of the consequences on their profits. That is the reality of what is happening. It offends all the rules of the OECD, the EC and the rest, but that is what is happening and it must be recognised. In support of that argument, I shall quote a statement by British Shipbuilders when, in relation to its marketing effort around the world, it said:
Our marketing people are scouring the world looking for orders, but it is difficult when some yards put in ridiculous bids just to keep their workforces together.
Some Far Eastern yards are quoting prices that will not even pay for the cost of materials.
When my hon. Friend attends talks in the EC, I hope that he and representatives of other EC countries will consider whether to treat such bids as dumping. We have recognised legislation on the subject. I shall not go through it all but, as a Minister, I had to administer that form of legislation. It is difficult to get full proof of dumping but in this case dumping is apparent.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: My hon. Friend said that he was a Minister with responsibility for these matters some time ago.

Sir David Price: A long time ago.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: In the past year or two there have been obvious cases of dumping in a wide range of industries, including, most obviously, the shipbuilding industry and the Korean orders. From time to time, we have asked about action being taken with the relevant Department under the dumping rule but it has never been followed through. Will my hon. Friend tell me why, and when something will be done? Unless we deal with the problem, other countries will continues to undercut us. They are dumping.

Sir David Price: I am most grateful for My hon. Friend's support. I have no Front Bench responsibility, so he should address himself to someone else. The difficulty has always been getting full proof of dumping. However, I believe that we are in a stronger position to do something about dumping if we act with Europe rather than individually as the United Kingdom. I was interested in some of what my hon. Friend the Minister said about European credit schemes. It is no use having credit schemes unless we keep out that which is demonstrably unfair.
The role of the Merchant Navy in our defence strategy brings together the needs of the Royal Navy with those of the Merchant Navy. I need not develop what I believe is a proven lesson of the Falklands campaign, which raises


no controversy in any part of the House—that the Royal Navy needs the Merchant Navy. I shall leave it at that. The House will agree that we should have an appropriate partnership between the Government and the shipping industry because without it, there can be no guarantee that we shall have an adequate Merchant Navy when it is next needed for the defence of the realm. I suggest that there is an early market for new orders for British shipping in this area of shipping.
More orders are urgently needed now both for warship and merchant yards. Although the Government cannot guarantee sufficient new orders, they have an influential role to play. It is much more influential on the military than on the merchant side, but it is still influential on the latter. My hon. Friend the Minister acknowledged that today. I earnestly hope that his and the Government's influence will be successful.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The Minister's speech was uncritical of the industry. I welcome that because, if any industry needs sustenance from the Government, it is the shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering industry. In the classic sense, the Government could abandon the industry to the vagaries of the free enterprise system, whereupon it would disappear altogether. I gather, however, from what the Minister said, that that is not the Government's policy. Irrespective of whether the Government fulfil their policy, at least on record, I am taking it that the Government wish to have a positive shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering presence in the United Kingdom. Therefore, what the chairman of British Shipbuilders, Sir Robert Atkinson, said to the Minister today is important. His propositions will undoubtedly be considered by the Government and processed in time. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) referred to two divisions, but I believe that there are three.
This Government, like any other, must have their own naval requirements. In my constituency 800 men are working at Scott Lithgow, not on submarine building and refits as they have been since the beginning of the century, but on other work. If they do not get more submarine work, they will be unemployed by Christmas or by next spring. If they are fortunate enough to obtain employment elsewhere, it will be difficult to reassemble the team, with the result that the Navy will have only one yard at Devonport to carry out such work. Submarines may be built at Vickers, but in Scotland not at all.
The Government should consider the defence programme to see whether they could speed up the shipbuilding that is to be done. Originally we were promised six refits of the Oberon class submarine at Scott Lithgow in Greenock and Port Glasgow. The yard completed two. The other orders were taken away from the yard, not because it was inadequate, delivered late or produced bad work—it got full marks and praise for its work—but because the work was needed elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and so it went to Devonport. Unless one of the four remaining orders is restored, the gap between that work and the building of new submarines will mean that the team is lost.
The first of the SSK2240 submarines will be built at Vickers, and we do not quarrel with that. The order should

be placed in July, and we hope that it is not delayed, but we wish the second order to be brought forward from July 1984 to perhaps Christmas, rather than waiting until the first submarine is built. In that way, we can retain the alternative of being able to build submarines in one of two yards. The hon. Member for Eastleigh also made that point. Let us have no arguments about free enterprise, because all Governments have conspired to destroy honest competition. We must all survive as best we can. I do not believe that we can cushion everyone and permit workers to disregard productivity. That is nonsense. They must do as well as they can, but genuine free enterprise no longer exists. The Government must create orders if they wish to retain the industry because there is no business outside the Government, given the present recession and the fact that it will last for some time.
That is an illustration from a yard in my constituency, which I am sure is repeated at Yarrow, further up the Clyde, on Tyne and Wear, in Southampton and elsewhere in Britain. The Royal Navy, through the Government, should be advised to speed up orders for ships that we shall require anyway. I am sure that it would be willing to do so. We may be wrong, and the world recession may disappear. There may be a recovery within a few years, or even one year, in which case we shall have managed to keep the industry going by promoting the orders. We could then slow down naval development to attune ourselves to the new demands. However, I do not expect that to happen.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Has my right hon. Friend's constituency, like mine, been declared by one of his authorities a so-called nuclear-free zone? Does he agree that it is the greatest hypocrisy to lobby for shipyard orders, and to ask Ministers to place naval orders at yards such as Swan Hunter on north Tyneside, while at the same time promoting the idea that the area should be a nuclear-free zone? Is not that the looniest part of the Labour party's policy?

Dr. Mabon: Of course, but I am trying to be uncontroversial. The Government might last another year, which will be a vital year for Birkenhead, Merseyside, Clydeside and Tyneside. It is vital that the Government do something. It is in no one's interest to prejudice the Government against the shipbuilding industry. We must persuade them to help shipbuilding to survive. The idea of a Labour campaign to embarrass the Tories at the expense of shipbuilding is one of the most cynical exercises that could be carried out. We are supposed to be having an all-party debate to persuade the Tories, and anybody else, of the right things to do to save British shipbuilding in the next year or two. I suspect that there are other motives. I am interested in the jobs of my people and not in the cheap votes that are sought in this contradictory way.
I despise those politicians who are prepared to put their party before the interests of the industry. The industry is concerned with survival. I am speaking for my people as well as for myself in saying this. My people resent deeply what is being said in this context. We wish to persuade this Government, the next Government or whatever of our case and are concerned about the promotion of defence orders.
Let me take this one stage further. The civil contacts in merchant shipping that were referred to are seriously at risk because there is little demand for merchant shipping. British Shipbuilders developed a special advanced drill


ship called the BS8000. It has not yet been built but, after all, many of the first-class vessels in the oil industry were designed when there were no customers. In Clydebank, to keep UIE going—it is a good company now—we had to advance the promotion of orders for drill ships. As a Minister I did this three times and previous Ministers had agreed to the speculative building of drill ships. Admittedly, the ships were not a substantial order, being about £7 million or £10 million, but that is quite a speculation because of the number of jobs involved. Every one of the ships was sold at a profit.
The BS8000 is 10 times the size of the drill ships built in Clydebank. It could be built by Cammell Laird and possibly better built by Scott Lithgow, but certainly should be built in the offshore division of British Shipbuilders. However, it does not have a customer. The chairman of British Shipbuilders should, in the package of proposals for aid that he suggested to the Minister, have included the speculative building of the giant oil rig, to be bought by someone. Many of the oil fields mentioned by the Minister of State, Department of Energy which are coming under the new provisions in the budget, such as the marginal fields, could buy as many as six or eight ships a year. The big customer at the moment is Sun Oil—we all know that. Perhaps it will be interested, or the rig might be bought overseas.
The Government have to give not money but a guarantee to British Shipbuilders that if it builds the rigs they will guarantee the money. If British Shipbuilders sells the rigs, no public money would be involved. What is more, of the £100 million or the £80 million that I have mentioned as the price of the rig, about £20 million or £30 million represents the cost of the customer's internal machinery—computer systems and so on. That is in the deal, but it is not part of the guaranteed price. Therefore, the sum is not quite so formidable.
I advocate advancement not only of defence orders for all yards, but of the oil orders, for which Cammell Laird and Scott Lithgow are the leading yards. I agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh that merchant shipping is different. My intervention to the Minister about the Chamber of Shipping convinces me that there is very little case for saying that the highly modernised British fleet can scrap and build. We have had this reply for many years. There was a time at the end of the war, and up to about 10 years after it, when the British fleet was very old and the scrap and build programme was a sensible one to achieve.
There is yet another aspect of this, however, in relation to merchant shipping, which is to say to British shipowners, "Do you not realise that without a British capacity for building ships you will in the last resort have to face up to a highly expensive market?" Some might say that the Third world countries are bound to develop to such a degree that they will always cut each other's throats. Korea will be the Britain of tomorrow, or the Japan of tomorrow, in relation to how Japan has been knocked out of the shipbuilding business.
I believe that British shipbuilders should be encouraged, not necessarily by fiscal means but by persuasion—as the Italians, the French and the Germans are able to do. I do not believe that the reason why these countries see their ships built in their own yards is exclusively fiscal. I believe that it is because there is a feeling that they should be built in their own country. This is particularly the case with the French. I confess that there

may be something in the Italian system that I have misunderstood, but the figures are overwhelming and I cannot believe that British shipowners are so unpatriotic that they will not come back to their own country.
I will concede that the criticism of British shipowners about the relationships and practice in our yards and about low productivity might have had some substance. but they really must wake up. Times have changed. The industry is facing a precipice; the industry is facing extinction. The shipowners must realise that the industry wants to prove itself in merchant shipbuilding as well as in the other areas. In these areas the Government can do a great deal in defence. That is not the Minister's prerogative, but he has to argue it with his colleagues. They can do a great deal in oil. That is perhaps not his immediate prerogative, but he has to argue that with his colleagues. In merchant shipping it is perhaps more difficult, but I would urge him very seriously to look at what Sir Robert has advanced to him today, to try very hard to see whether he can meet that and, if he really believes that British shipbuilding can survive, as it must, to give the help now—not next year or the year after.

Mr. Tony Speller: Were we speaking about sheep, I imagine that the benches on this side would be fuller, and I suspect that we would be happier. It is strange that if we are talking about agriculture we are talking about prosperity within the Economic Community, but as we are speaking about shipbuilding we are talking about a deep depression.
I wish to speak briefly this evening about a shipyard that sounds like a farm. It is called Appledore, which would make a lovely name for a farm, but it is a very small super shipyard and a very efficient one, without the restrictive practices which may hinder other shipyards. Like other shipyards, however, it faces the prospect of losing some 25 per cent. of its work force.
It is strange that were this a farm—a large farm but none the less in the agricultural world—someone would be talking about some form of Community intervention more effective than we have at present. Someone would be talking about moving out of milk and into meat. Someone would be saying, 'With the skills you have, we will pay you to leave this sector of this industry, which is steelworking basically, and move to some other sector which is also steelworking but different."
It may sound ludicrous, but adjacent to Appledore there is soon to be built a very large bridge costing millions of pounds, and it may well be that working in steel is working in steel whether it is vessels or sections of a bridge that are being made. I make no apology for using the agricultural analogy, but there is all the difference in the world between the two debates—this one and the last one in which I participated, when we were talking not about ships but about sheep.
I suppose that, if the world recession in shipping ends in one year, two years or three years, the odds are that there will still be highly efficient shipyards outside this country. I wonder how many will be left in this country. It seems likely to me that we are on starvation rations all round, which will result in genuine economic malnutrition by the time orders once again start to come our way. This Government must consider whether it is not better to spend a lot of money to encourage some people right out of an industry where quite clearly there will never be the


demand—as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said a little while ago—that there was in 1972.
If that is the case, let us not beat about the bush. Let us consider the three fascinating points made by the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon). I shall steer clear of his more controversial comments.
The right hon. Gentleman said that orders were sent elsewhere for the wrong reasons. If that means that British Shipbuilders has the right or even feels an obligation to juggle orders to pass the rations around irrespective of efficiency, that is entirely contrary to Conservative policy and economic sense in the future of our shipyards.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said that there was no free enterprise left. If that is so, it is wicked that smaller shipyards such as Appledore imagine that they are competing freely against the others. On agricultural matters and indeed on this issue, I have had no problems in meeting Ministers. In discussions about meat or sheep, there is also no problem in meeting the commercial interests involved. In this context, however, when my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) and I sought to meet Sir Robert, he had left the country or was too busy elsewhere to see us. The shipbuilding industry sometimes seems to feel that it is remote from the rest of the economy — thoroughly depressed and, because of its remoteness, less happy and with less of a future.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to energy. The Budget should certainly bring a great improvement to the oil industry. Let us hope that it does and that we are just as pushy as other nations in ensuring that the vessels and rigs are built in our own yards. I see no harm in economic nationalism if economic co-operation within the Community is not working, as it clearly is not in this case.
Finally, I plead with the Government to support this small, efficient yard for which small orders—half a loaf at a time — are not exciting but are adequate nourishment. Mention has been made of Vosper Thornycroft as well as the yard in my area of Devon. It would be a shame if they were bled so that they had no strength left when the upturn came. I have great faith in the ability of British yards to produce good ships and I have great faith in the Government's ability to seek and to secure orders for all British vessels within our capacity. I do not share the view of the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who appeared to seek subsidy for everything, but I believe that there must be subsidy for some things. If we can subsidise farmers and so many other sectors through Community co-operation and see no ill in that, it is logical that we should also show interest in our shipbuilders. They are no less worthy of survival and no less hard-working, but they clearly feel that they are getting the dirty end of the stick, and I believe that they are right.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I shall confine my remarks essentially to the Tyne and Wear area. The threat of redundancy faces workers in other parts of the country, too, but we have more shipyards than any other area. Including those employed by suppliers, some 80,000 people are directly or indirectly

employed in shipbuilding, ship repair and marine engineering in the Tyne and Wear area. Despite the rundown that has taken place, British Shipbuilders is the second largest manufacturing employer in my native city. That represents more than 10 per cent. of the jobs in Newcastle.
I give those figures because last week the regional secretary of my union, the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, received a reply to a letter that he had sent to the Prime Minister a week or two earlier. In that reply on behalf of the Treasury the Minister of State, whilst appreciating my union's concern about the problems of the shipbuilding industry, indicated clearly that the Government could see no future for the north-east being dependent on a traditional industry such as shipbuilding. I quote from his reply:
The future must lie in widening the industrial base of the region and moving away from heavy dependence on traditional industries.
I respect the Minister of State for his honesty in expressing his beliefs and those of the Government, but it must alarm everyone in the area, heavily dependent as it is on some aspect of the maritime industry, that the policy of the British Government should be unashamedly to sit back and allow the collapse of shipbuilding and ship repairing in the hope that at some point in the dim and distant future other jobs will appear to employ the vast army of unemployed men and women which would result from the demise of the shipbuilding industry.
I ask the Minister and right hon. Members on the Conservative side what the people should do in the intervening period until the dim, distant future becomes a reality. It is nonsense for a maritime nation to write off an entire industry whose importance to the nation is so obvious. Last year, according to Lloyd's register of shipping, less than 44 per cent. of the tonnage of ships for United Kingdom registered companies was under construction in this country while Korea was given orders to build 25 per cent. of our gross tonnage. In anybody's language that is a scandal.
In the letter to Tom Burlison of my union, the Minister claims that capital investment in the shipbuilding industry has increased under the Government. The Minister of State is trying to excuse his Government for the savage treatment that is being dealt out to this nationalised industry. I refer hon. Members to a more informative set of statistics which show that, as a percentage of total United Kingdom investment, capital investment in the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry after three years of the Conservative Government stood at only 1 per cent. compared with almost 10 per cent. during the 1970s.
Without a rational maritime policy based upon maintaining a credible shipbuilding and ship repairing facility, rather than the narrow anti short-sighted desire for profitability, shipbuilding and ship repairing will have little future. In condemning British shipbuilding, as the Government appear to do, they condemn numerous communities based round the rivers of the Tyne and Wear, where unemployment in some parts already stands at well over 20 per cent.
The rundown of shipbuilding also has an effect on other industries. According to British Shipbuilders' evidence to the Select Committee on Industry and Trade, 50 to 60 per cent. of the cost of a ship is made up of materials and equipment bought in from other companies, and 94 per cent. of those purchases, costing £550 million, are placed


with United Kingdom-based companies. Of course, one of the main suppliers of the shipbuilding industry is the British Steel Corporation which supplies some 95 per cent. of the heavy plate requirements of British Shipbuilders. Therefore, if British Shipbuilders is thrown to the wolves, there will be a considerable knock-on effect for the steel industry.
There is no doubt that the Government lack a coherent industrial strategy. The devastation that has occurred already in towns around the north of England shows the ineptitude of the Conservative Government in managing British industry. I remind the Prime Minister that the industry is much more complicated than a grocer's corner shop. Interdependence means that if one substantial industry falls it will take several others down with it. Since the Government came to power they have blamed the decline in many industries on over-manning and industrial disputes. The men employed by British Shipbuilders were told two years ago that low productivity and too many strikes were the reasons for the loss of jobs in the industry. It was a transparent lie. With a 16 per cent. rise in productivity and an excellent industrial relations record, job losses continued to grow unimpeded. These men, who are justified in saying that they have increased their productivity magnificently, cry, "What must we do?"
This afternoon representatives of the workers in the yards on Tyne and Wear were in London to add weight to the campaign to save shipbuilding and ship repairing. It is a matter of survival for these men, their wives and their families. Tyne and Wear county council, which is helping to spearhead the campaign, has outlined an eight-point plan based upon investment in shipbuilding. It includes promotion of a genuine "Buy British" campaign, rather than simply paying lip service to the slogan, and draws attention to the need to channel funds and to diversify the industry, particularly with regard to offshore exploration.

Mr. Barry Porter: I am sure that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his eloquent plea on behalf of his part of the country. I am from Birkenhead on Merseyside. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will find time for my Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), to catch your eye. He knows a great deal more about Cammell Laird's yard, its intricacies and details of the work force than I can ever hope to. Despite his presence, I still choose to live in Birkenhead.
I remember that the first launch that I saw there was the Ark Royal in about 1950, when the Queen Mother launched that enormous vessel. The latest launch I have seen was HMS Edinburgh, last week. Between those times, the work force of about 25,000 at Cammell Laird's has decreased to less than one-fifth of that number. I make that point, in a debate which has been notable for its nonpartisan views, to show that during that time, under Governments of both persuasions, employment in shipbuilding and ship repairing has drastically decreased. I concede immediately that the position has been exacerbated by the recession, which was so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Minister. I do not believe that anyone could seriously say that Governments can create demand for ships when all the evidence that we have had over the past quarter of a century points to the contrary.
As well as the recession, there has been the increase in competition, about which we have heard in such detail from the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon). I am sorry that he is not here. One of my immediate next-door neighbours in the fifties was an engineer from Port Glasgow. I did not take much notice of him either.
While I was having my lunch after the launch of HMS Edinburgh on Thursday last, Sir Robert Atkinson said:
The point of no return is with us.
Some people might observe cynically, "He would, wouldn't he?" Sir Robert is about to retire and there is no virtue or percentage in his saying that if it were not the case. From what I have read in the past few days, and from my observations over the past few years, it seems that it is probably correct.
One Opposition Member said that what we needed was demand. I said initially that in my opinion it is not within the competence of the Government to create demand—certainly not for merchant ships—unless one decides to build for stock. However, the modern sophisticated ship cannot be built in that way. Clearly, one waits for demand in the case of merchant shipping. Of course warships have to be built, and demand for them can be and should be created. Perhaps I might make one plea before my hon. Friend—I use that term advisedly—gets in, and say that there is no better yard for building warships than Cammell Laird, although it could hardly be described as part of the offshore division.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is it in a nuclear-free zone?

Mr. Porter: No, we are in an employment-free zone. That is what I am interested in. Is it not the job of Governments, whether this Government or any other, to look not so much at demand as at capacity in the long term and what it will require in terms of capital, labour and skill? It is for the Government to determine that capacity in conjunction with British Shipbuilders and industry generally, and with other parts of the Government machine. It was said that the British merchant marine was of great value to the balance of payments. The Government can and should make a judgment about the capacity that is required, and I hope that that economic advantage will be given to us.
I am not paid to give solutions. I am paid moderately to pose questions. Have the Government yet decided what capacity should be in warship building? Have they decided what capacity should be in the merchant marine? I was somewhat heartened to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say at the beginning of this debate that the Government were being flexible and were considering the package that had been presented by Sir Robert Atkinson, and I hope that that package contains British Shipbuilders' suggestions for the right capacities.
In the interest of brevity, and in the hope that I shall hear the words of my own Member of Parliament, I conclude by referring to the fact that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was recently dispatched to the west midlands to save the engineering industry there for the nation. I hope that he will find time in the other three arid a half days to consider the country's shipbuilding and ship repair industries.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: I have participated in many debates on the problems of the shipbuilding industry during the time that I have been Member of Parliament for the Wallsend constituency. By nature, I am an optimist, but I get a feeling—it is becoming widespread not only in my constituency but elsewhere — that something terminal is happening to the industry. Whether that is a myth or a reality, I do not know. However, the mood of pessimism which was displayed by a spasm of anger yesterday at Hebburn on Tyne when the BP tanker British Achievement was launched is just one spasm, and it is difficult to know whether that spasm is a continuation of apathy among those who are employed in and around the shipbuilding industry.
The Minister himself seemed gloomy and despondent. That, at least, was the feeling that I got from his speech. he did not appear to have the verve and vigour that he has displayed on other occasions when he has had to give a public explanation of the problems that affect the industry. If this policy of drift—and drift it is—continues, and if the package that is being discussed with British Shipbuilders and the Government—I understand that a rescue plan has been mooted—fails because of world market forces, we shall have to ask ourselves some questions. What happens to the yards that are mothballed? Are we courageous enough to say, "No, they are not mothballed but closed"? What is the point in kidding people that something is being mothballed when the reality is that they are to be closed permanently?
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) knows more about that than I do because in a neighbouring constituency a yard is equally affected. What will happen to the yards that are not being mothballed? Must the Government continue with investment to bring them up to a more efficient standard? A lot of money will have to be put into our yards to bring them up to that standard. If money is invested, will it be wasted? The House must have a statement from the Government of what investment decisions are to be made. Even if the labour force continues to be reduced, will there be investment to ensure that Britain has some hope of competing fairly in the world market?
The question of research must be examined. What is the good of having the British Ship Research Association with those fine brains and technical expertise? Is it to continue? If it is, where is the result of its research going? Such questions must exercise the minds not only of Ministers but of all hon. Members.
I have always been proud of the fact that when I started my apprenticeship before the 1939–45 war I was sufficiently keen—one had to be damned keen—to be offered an engineering craft apprenticeship. At that time, out of a population of 46 million, 2 million were unemployed. When I served my apprenticeship, I was taught the necessary skills. I could not get that out of a book or by attending evening classes. If the present generation of skilled workers disappears, the skills will also vanish. It is all very well for administrators and those who have degrees in the social sciences but there will not be plumbers, electricians, fitters, systems analysts or planners.
People in the shipbuilding industries are discussing these questions in the clubs with their wives, sons and daughters. A mood of despondency is creeping in. The

Minister knows that money could be put in tomorrow and that more people could become redundant on a relative pittance of £5,000 or £6,000, which is less than one and a half year's salary at £60 a week. What are we to do? Ministers have not applied their minds to that question. The country is looking for a lead and for guidance. Above all, it is looking for reality, and it is not getting it.

Mr. Frank Field: I wish to convey to the House the atmosphere in the shipyard in my constituency. It is one of pride and anger. The pride comes from the performance of the yard during the past few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter)—I call him that on this issue because he lobbies as well as anybody else for orders for Cammell Laird—stated that last Thursday we were present at the launching of HMS Edinburgh. That ship, like the Liverpool, was a year ahead of schedule. The outfitting of Edinburgh on the day of its launch was four months ahead of schedule. Lairds in my constituency has a huge Dome rig contract which is on time and the workers are working six and a half days a week to ensure that that order is delivered on the day it should be.
We have a small gas order and the yard is making a massive effort to ensure that it is delivered on time. That record of achievement gives rise to the pride of which I spoke. It was not achieved by the trade union side maintaining its restrictive practices. That is why the workers that I represent in that yard will be angry when they hear or read what the Minister has said. He emphasised their lack of performance and poor productivity. However, hon. Members should consider that record of achievement which I have described against the background of a shortening order book. It is easier to get workers to change their attitudes when the order book is long, but it is damned difficult to get them to do so when the last order is being completed.
The workers angrily ask what more they have to do to win orders. My hon. Friend the Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port will bear me out when I say that at the last general election people were told in Merseyside that if they voted for the Conservative party there would be not just another order, but more orders in the shipyard. We are waiting for our first major order for Cammell Laird since the election, and, as I have said, I want to convey the anger and pride of those workers.
Many Opposition Members talk about productivity and the need to improve it. The Minister assumes that we live in a simple world and that productivity depends solely on labour practices. It does not. Even so, we must be prepared to talk about productivity levels and to consider how much better our performance must be if we are to survive as a shipbuilding nation. Three suggestions have been made to the Minister by Opposition Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) suggested that a subsidy should be offered to British owners to build in British yards, and that proposals will come up in the Finance Bill. It has also been suggested that we should bring forward defence orders, and that we should build on spec in the faith that we shall win customers for those orders.
The Government should consider those proposals seriously and then act. I expect that there will be strings attached and that any concession on these fronts will be tied closely to increases in performance, output and


productivity. That is right. However, the message from Cammell Laird is that if there are ships to build there will be no productivity at all. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Michael Grylls: I shall be brief, because other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I shall concentrate my remarks on the warship yards, because there has been a serious reduction in our capability to play a full part in the export of warships. Before nationalisation, the warship yards largely existed on export business, as opposed to building purely for the Royal Navy.
For example, Vosper Thornycroft used to get 70 per cent. of its business from overseas. The figure recently suggested by Sir Robert Atkinson is that that company might try to obtain 30 per cent. of its business from overseas orders. Although there has been a shortage of orders in merchant shipping there has not been the same shortage of orders in warship building. In the last two to three years there has been £2,000 million-worth of export orders for warships, but Britain has hardly seen any of that. Almost all the orders have gone to Germany, Italy or other European countries.
The business has been there but the tragedy is that British shipbuilding yards have not succeeded in getting it. Whatever the reason, I strongly believe — this probably applies to the whole of shipbuilding but particularly to warship building — that independent privately owned yards are more likely to be successful in obtaining orders than large bureaucratic corporations such as British Shipbuilders. I cannot believe for a moment that, had Sir Eric Yarrow been running Yarrows in Glasgow and had Sir John Rix been running Vosper Thornycroft in Southampton and Portsmouth, they would have allowed the Cunard vessel to be repaired in Malta. They would have ensured, one way or the other, that they received that business. I cannot believe that those experienced and dedicated shipbuilders would have allowed that business to go overseas, but that is history.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will, at the earliest possible opportunity, use his powers under the British Shipbuilders Act 1983 to return the warships yards to the private sector so that they can operate as independent companies fighting for business not only in Britain but in all parts of the world. They could then go out to win orders from other countries to build warships in the same dedicated way they won them before nationalisation. That is my message to my hon. Friend. In that way we are more likely to be successful and are more likely to maintain for our country an effective and up-to-date warship building capacity which, I believe, both sides of the House wish to see maintained.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to thank hon. Members for being brief. To the two hon. Members who remain, I say that the replies are expected to begin at 9.30 pm. We can help each other.

Mr. Don Dixon: The question being asked by Opposition Members and by shipbuilding workers is, "Do the Government want a shipbuilding industry?" We believe that for Britain as an island nation, it is absolutely essential. However, the Government's actions since they

were elected in 1979 leave doubts in the minds of Opposition Members and in the minds of those who work in the shipbuilding industry.
After the war, when the order books were full, the British shipbuilding industry in private hands would not invest a brass farthing in the shipyards. That is why they were uncompetitive with the Japanese, the Swedes, the Koreans and so on. When the Minister says that since nationalisation, £600 million has been invested in the shipbuilding industry, I remind him that the seven main shipyards in Japan invested £620 million last year alone. Indeed, Korea is investing £400 million a year in its shipbuilding industry. We are sick and tired of hearing about how the industry fared when it was in private hands. Our industry's orders went down by 15 per cent. in 1962, so the Patten report was commissioned which pointed to a lack of investment in the shipbuilding industry. Orders continued to decline and in 1966 the Geddes report blamed lack of investment and said that the industry needed coordination and rationalisation. The shipbuilding board was then set up. Orders still declined, so we had the BoozAllen report in 1972, which was the blueprint for nationalisation. But for the nationalisation of the industry by the previous Government, we would not be having this debate about the shipbuilding industry tonight. Let us make no bones about that.
I wish to refer to the orders to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) referred. The order for the P and 0 liner valued at £90 million went to Finland. When my right hon. Friend wrote to the Prime Minister to complain, the right hon. Lady wrote back to say that Harland and Wolff and Swan Hunter could not compete for the order because of the lack of tradesmen. In Tyne and Wear there are 5,000 tradesmen—people who have worked in the shipbuilding industry all their lives—without work. Yet the Prime Minister gave the lack of workers as the reason for the order going to Finland.
Twelve months ago, when the Falklands dispute arose, shipyard workers who had been thrown out of work months earlier were brought back and they worked round the clock to get the task force ready to go to the Falklands. At the same time Lord Matthews was stating in his newspapers that we must be patriotic. His patriotism was shown when it was suggested that the Atlantic Conveyor replacement should be built in Korea. Now we hear that the Cunard Countess is to be refitted in Malta. Is that patriotism? Patriotism in this country is determined by the thickness of one's money belt, not by where one lives or works. That is the problem the British shipyard workers have had to face for so long.
The Minister said that it was costing £7,000 to keep each shipyard worker in employment. It costs £6,000 to put each one on the dole. Where are the economics in that? Would it not be better to keep them in employment:, competing and building ships, so maintaining a viable industry, rather than allowing them to stand on street corners kicking their heels? The Minister can take that smirk off his face because I am not talking silly. I am talking about human beings and the sooner some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen start talking about human beings, the better life will be for the people about whom we are concerned tonight.
When we are talking about a shipyard worker we are talking about a wage earner, a man with a family to keep and children to feed. We are not talking simply of statistics


or percentages, and the Minister must realise that. He is sitting there with a smirk on his face, when we have been lobbied today by people who are worried about their industry and their future — about their families, their towns and communities. We do not require that sort of attitude from the Minister.
We in the shipbuilding industry have had 25,000 redundancies since nationalisation. We have seen shipyards, ship repair yards and engine works close down. There has been full co-operation from the workers, who have fallen from third to 19th in the wages league in Britain during that period of co-operation. They cooperated because they thought they had some interest and say in their industry, but it has all been a sham because of the attitude of the Government and the measure they have just introduced.
I assure Conservative Members who speak of privatisation that we have had enough of the industry being in private hands. I had enough of that from the age of 14 until the shipyards were nationalised in 1977 and I became a Member. We have seen what private shipbuilders can do for Britain. They ruined the shipbuilding industry, and we want no more of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) referred to the demonstration yesterday when the last ship left Hebburn and Palmer's. Nobody condones people banging on cars, spitting at people and calling them names, but one must try to understand why they were demonstrating in that way. Those men were losing their jobs. They knew that in their area they would have no chance of another job.
The sooner it is realised that they are human beings and that they will react in that way, the better. Do Conservative Members want people, on being declared redundant, to go the labour exchange like zombies? We want people to fight for their jobs. We wanted them to fight in the Falklands, 8,000 miles away, last year. Why should they not fight for their jobs in their own communities this year?
There is much more I could say but I shall conclude because my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) must have an opportunity to speak. He comes from the same district as I do, an adjoining constituency, and his constituents have suffered a tremendous number of redundancies. In a democratic society the right to work is as fundamental as the right to free speech, and the sooner the Government realise that the better.

Dr. David Clark: The amendment asks us to welcome Her Majesty's Government's measures to sustain the shipbuilding industry. I wish that I could. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) has just made an angry and genuine speech and he represents the feelings of British shipyard workers.
I have told the Minister that nothing has made the shipyard workers more angry than the fiasco over the Falklands campaign. Yet again, the men saw themselves as pure lobby fodder of a Conservative Government. The way in which the Government called upon the skills of those men whom they had discarded months before was callous in the extreme. They were discarded then just as they were discarded in the 1930s. However, the Government did call upon them and those men worked around the clock to launch ships not weeks but months ahead of schedule to meet the deadlines because they

believed in their country. But when it comes to the refits, very little work comes to the river Tyne, although much goes overseas. I must admit that we do not think much of the patriotism of the owners of British shipping.
I am sorry that we do not have a Minister from the Ministry of Defence here today. We know that the merchant and the naval sides are interlinked. Many lessons can be learnt from the Falklands campaign and the Government can take many positive steps to help. I want to make one or two suggestions. For example, only in an extreme emergency should any foreign vessel be chartered for campaigns such as the Falklands. Yet we chartered vessels from Norway and Denmark. Indeed, if pressure had not been put on the Secretary of State for Defence, the Ministry of Defence would have bought a Scandinavian vessel—MV England. It was called off at the eleventh hour. It is scandalous that the Ministry of Defence should contemplate buying foreign vessels, and I hope that the Minister will discuss that point with the Ministry of Defence.
There are about 150 supply ships plying in the British section of the North sea. About 50 of them are Norwegian vessels. Of the 54 supply vessels that operate in the Norwegian section of the North sea— I hope that the Minister is paying attention to this—not one is British, if my memory serves me correctly. Yet one third of the vessels in the British section are Norwegian. I know that the Minister has seen the Norwegian minister of shipping and commerce and I hope that he can tell the House, either now or later, what progress he has made in negotiating safety regulations, a closed shop, or whatever. There is some protectionism going on in the North sea. Other Governments are not playing the game in the way in which we unfortunately always seem to.
The Minister has a duty to stimulate our home industry, but we have lost too many vessels. For example, it is an open secret that British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. will order at least one more vessel. I presume that that will be built in Britain as all the others have been. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance tonight on that point. The Government are asking us to support their measures, but I do not see any. To tackle the problem within the scope of the EC is perhaps to bark up the wrong tree because the EC will work only if there is sufficient capacity, evenly spread, throughout the EC countries. Plainly, that is not so in shipbuilding. An example is the compensation given to shipyard workers or shipbuilding areas in the EC compared with the aid given to the former steel and coal areas. The situation is completely different. Therefore, to try to tackle the problem within the EC is not the answer. I cannot understand why the Minister does not appreciate this point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) said that it costs about £6,000 to keep a person out of work. That is purely in financial terms, forgetting the social costs and so on. Possibly the cost is more than that. The Minister admits that some shipyard workers have been costing the country £7,000. I accept that. Why is it wrong to subsidise the British shipyard worker to the extent of £7,000 when it is not wrong to subsidise the British farmer to the tune of, on average, £8,000 or £9,000 every year? I do not see the logic of that. The Minister explains it by saying that ships are lying idle and that they are all laid up. However, there are mountains of butter and beef and wine lakes, yet we are still subsidising farmers to produce surpluses.
There is sense in subsidising the farmers because there is sense in keeping a viable agriculture industry. It is good for strategic and economic purposes. However, what is good for farming is good for shipbuilding when we are an island. It is nonsensical to adopt any other policy. It is rank stupidity to follow the policy that the Government are following deliberately to run down the shipbuilding industry.

Dr. John Cunningham: At least everyone who has spoken in the debate has agreed that the shipbuilding industry and the ship repair industry in Britain are facing a deep and prolonged crisis. It is no accident that the debate has been dominated by speakers from the north of England. Contributions have been made by Scots and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), where the problem is most acute.
The problem is in the merchant shipbuilding, ship repair and offshore divisions of British Shipbuilders. The interesting thing about the debate, which is one of a number that we have had in this Parliament, is that we have had the same sort of speech from the Minister of State as in almost every other debate on shipbuilding.
The Minister made a lengthy speech, but in reality told us little about the Government's intentions. He said that there had been plenty of warning about the crisis and that it had not come upon the industry suddenly. That is right. It has not come upon the Government suddenly, either. There is absolutely no excuse for the Government not to tell the House and the industry what their intentions are.
During their term of office, the Government have introduced two Bills on the shipbuilding industry. One we welcomed and supported and the other we opposed violently. We oppose privatisation as an irrelevance to the problems of the shipbuilding industry. It is now seen as just that. Did the Minister of State tell us at any time that he would use the provisions of the Government's much-vaunted Act to help the industry in its present crisis? Of course not, because he recognises that there is no way in which the provisions of the Act can help the industry in the present serious state of affairs.
The Minister said rather sanctimoniously that whatever assistance the Government might give to the industry, the shipyard workers had to improve their performance. I told him in an intervention and I tell him again that it comes ill from Ministers in this Government to say to workers in the industry that they must go on and on improving their performance when the prospect facing them is the dole queue.
I shall briefly remind the House of the performance of the workers since vesting day. The unions have cooperated in the complete restructuring of the industry, which is almost unprecedented in British industry. They have co-operated in reducing by 25,000 the number of workers in the industry, and in reducing 168 different bargains to two. For the past four years they have cooperated in accepting wage settlements below the rate of inflation. They have co-operated on improving productivity, and time lost, which is the lowest of any industry. They have co-operated in trying to achieve a better image for the industry worldwide, which had led to orders.
For the Minister now to say that they must continue with that when they have been told that about 10,000 of them will face the dole is to add insult to injury. The men in the industry wish to improve productivity and wish to

be as effective as other shipbuilding industries, but how can workers improve productivity when they have no work? How can they improve productivity in berths in shipyards that are standing idle? It is nonsense to suppose that they can improve their performance on a declining throughput of business. That is the fallacy in what the Minister asks the shipyard workers to do, and that is why they reject it.
It is not good enough for the Minister to say that the Government have made strong representations with the EC about the behaviour of the Japanese and the Koreans. He talked about world excess capacity, but only this week Hyundai announced plans to open a second major offshore yard. Apparently the representations fell on deaf ears. Representations by OECD countries to Japan also had little impact. Japanese yards accounted for 68 per cent. of the total OECD tonnage in 1981, which shows how much they dominate world shipbuilding and OECD ordering. It is no good us reducing shipbuilding capacity in Britain because that will make no difference, or very little, to the worldwide excess capacity.
Not only was much of the Minister's speech disappointing, but much of it was irrelevant to the problems facing British shipbuilding. He mentioned the possibility of improved credit terms for ship purchasers, but that was the limit to any change in Government policy towards this vital and strategic industry. Rather like his speech, the Government amendment to our motion is irrelevant. It states that the House should welcome the Government's measures to sustain the industries, but it is plain that the Government's policies do not do that. That is the reality of the crisis. Far from being sustained, the industries are going down the drain.
How Conservative Members, some of whom, especially the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller), spoke to great effect about the problems in their constituencies, can vote for this motion, I do not know. I noticed that the hon. Member for Devon, North did riot say that the workers in a yard in his constituency asked him to tell the Government that they did not wish to be sold off, and that they wished to remain part of the British Shipbuilding Corporation because they believed that it offered them the best hope of survival.
Against the Government amendment we should set the shipbuilding and ship repair business, which is bleeding away from Britain. The result has not simply been that a mass of expenditure has been lost by shipyards but, as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out, marine equipment manufacturers, the marine industry and the steel industry have lost severely. That goes right through the British economy.
I shall list a few of the orders in question. One was for the P and 0 liner that went to a Finnish yard. An emergency support vessel for a British company in the North sea has also gone to a Finnish yard. An order for a vessel for the CEGB is going to Korea. There is the prospect of an order for a British Nuclear Fuels vessel —another public company—going to the far east. The latest, and one of the most insulting fiascos, is the Cunard Countess contract, which is going to a Maltese yard. That exposes the hypocrisy of Cunard after the massive row we had about the replacement for the Atlantic Conveyor. Cunard has pulled the same trick on the Government again with another vessel from the south Atlantic.
The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) shakes his head. Perhaps he does not know that the


Ministry of Defence agreed a cash deal with Cunard and then said that it would not exercise any control over where that taxpayers' money was spent. Does he regard that as effective government, or an example of a Government who are concerned about the future of the British shipbuilding and ship repair industries, or the jobs of shipyard workers? If he does, he has an odd way of looking at the problem.
Since the Government took office, several hundred million pounds worth of business has gone abroad. Far from introducing policies to support the industry, the Government have merely presided over its decline. Ministers and Conservative Members have a favourite phrase. They say that throwing money at industry does not solve its problems. However, that is precisely what the Government have done. They have extended cash limits but done nothing else. They have introduced no new policy initiatives apart from their Bill on privatisation. They have made no fundamental changes in maritime policy of any significance in four years. The Government are failing and it is no surprise.
Nor is it any surprise that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and others expressed deep anger about what is happening in the shipbuilding communities of Tyneside and Wearside, which are in the region that already has the highest level of unemployment in Britain outside Northern Ireland. They face calamity, as do those people who work on the Clyde, where 20,000 jobs depend directly, and at least twice as many depend indirectly, on the shipbuilding industry.
Having listened to many speeches in the past four years, I believe that far too many Government supporters have no conception of what life is like in those communities or how young children who are coming out of school feel—

Mr. Barry Porter: Nonsense.

Dr. Cunningham: Nor have they any idea how well-qualified, energetic and enthusiastic young people who are leaving school feel when there is not the slightest chance of their getting a job in the foreseeable future. Many Tory hon. Members would do well to look at and listen to some of those people and their representatives to find out what the Government policies that they support are doing to the young generation in those areas.
Without major new policy initiatives, shipbuilding, merchant shipbuilding, ship repairing and offshore platform building industries are likely to go to the wall. The chairman of British Shipbuilders believes that time is short. The Minister talked of discussions and of arriving at policies that are acceptable to the EC. There is no time for that. The Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), who is now Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, said in July 1979 that the Government were committed to a scrap and build policy and would discuss this with our EC partners. That ran into the sand — no progress, no decision, no policy. The record of the EC on the shipbuilding industry of Europe is abysmal, and there is no hope of salvation from that direction. Far from this being a good idea, it is a bad one. It will delay any decision by the Government and will probably mean that many of our shipyard workers are on the dole before any conclusions are reached.
We need strenuous and urgent efforts now to obtain orders for our shipyard workers — naval orders and merchant shipbuilding orders, as almost everyone who has spoken in the debate has agreed. Public sector orders could be accelerated, building of stock or speculative building should be introduced, scrap and build policies should be re-examined and better incentives for British shippers to build ships in Britain should be introduced. We need a maritime strategy. We moved an amendment to the British Shipbuilders Bill, but the Government rejected it while making no new intitiatives themselves.
I regret to say that there is no sign of a recognition of the urgency of the problem, or of a change in attitude in anything that the Minister has had to say to the House today. In the shipbuilding regions we are face to face not with crisis, but with catastrophe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and others said, we face not just industrial catastrophe but social catastrophe on the Clyde, the Tyne, the Wear, in Merseyside and throughout the British engineering industry. The future is bleak and grim, as the Minister said.
The Government have no policy initiatives to put before the House. We have heard nothing from them tonight that convinces us that the shipbuilding industry is safe in their hands after four years of their administration. The Government have no excuses and no policies.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I fully understand the feeling, passion and commitment that have been shown by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but particularly by the hon. Members for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for South Shields (Dr. Clark) about the current crisis. I reject the implications by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) that somehow the Government do not understand or may not have observed the difficulties that he has seen in the north and north-east. My hon. Friend the Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) would question that observation. I too would maintain as strongly as I can that Conservative Members do not confine themselves to the bourgeois aspects of life. We too are aware that there are grave social and economic difficulties in that part of the world.
The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) spoke of orders in Mexico, Sweden and India. In Mexico, British Shipbuilders is optimistic that we shall secure the business. In Sweden, negotiations are continuing and I am hopeful of a quick and favourable outcome. In India, British Shipbuilders has not been in touch recently, but is willing to consider any proposal that India might put to it.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the difficulties caused internationally by far eastern competition in this market. The hon. Member for Whitehaven said that Japan was subsidising its orders to the tune of 15 per cent. That was the import of an article from Lloyd's List. It is also said in the same article that it must move towards covering its costs and, indeed, competitive tendering.
The intervention fund, which helps British companies to meet the prices which are charged internationally, thus far amounts to £128 million. I suppose that our international competitors could also argue that, by putting in £453 million of public dividend capital, we too are


assisting our domestic industry in forms which may not be considered to be entirely on the basis of covering one's costs or raising one's equity capital at a real market rate.
Some hon. Members have this evening blamed the difficulties of our merchant shipbuilding industry on unfair competition from the far east, and on many occasions the prime culprit has been identified as Korea. We should be wary of putting all the blame for our problems on unfair competition. The fact is that Korea, for example, has a substantial competitive advantage over the United Kingdom. It has come late to the business. Its industry is very new and has the benefit of considerable recent investment. Labour is cheaper and workers are prepared to accept working practices which would be unacceptable to their British counterparts.
I join members of the Opposition in paying a tribute to the industry for the improvements in productivity that have been obtained, the great steps that have been made in many of our shipyards and the willingness of management and unions to co-operate in the face of the current crisis. I have to say to Opposition Members, however, that they would have extreme difficulty in persuading the people whom they represent, the constituents whose cause they have espoused with great vigour tonight, that they should take a wage cut. They are presumably already having great difficulty in understanding why another set of redundancies is coming into effect.
When we consider our competitive advantage or disadvantage with regard to Korea, we should bear it in mind that it is prepared to use methods which are far more radical than those which we have used. These are Korean economic advantages that we have to live with.
The key question is whether the competition offered is unfair. The Korean and other industries have certainly had investment support, but so have the United Kingdom and all European industries. It is clearly not unfair as far as the Koreans are concerned to work those longer hours for less money. If unfairness is involved it must be in the form of hidden subsidies. It has proved exceedingly difficult to produce evidence of such subsidies. Even if we could produce the evidence, Korea, as a developing country, is not covered by the sort of OECD arrangements which we would wish to invoke in order to pursue our grievance.
It may be hard to believe that a country could so successfully build up its industry at a time of deep recession while its competitors are experiencing severe difficulties, but the simple fact is that mere suspicions of unfairness take us nowhere.
I repeat the commitment made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State on this occasion and many others, and I address this particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price). We shall pursue with all vigour complaints of unfair competition—and indeed of dumping, to take up the point made by my hon. Friend — in the appropriate arena should that evidence be presented to us. I can say tonight that we shall refocus our attention on this matter, but I appeal to all hon. Members and to the domestic industry itself to give us the hard evidence, which we will use to the best effect possible.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Is it not the case that Sir Robert has made public speeches criticising the extraordinary subsidisation of the Korean industry, and its dumping practices? Is it not enough for the chairman of a public industry appointed by the Government to make this point for the Government to believe it?

Mr. Butcher: We and Sir Robert have the same problem, which is that, although we have a very firm view that Korea cannot compete in the way that it is competing, we need the sort of documentation that is very hard to come by in order to pursue that case in the appropriate quarter. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, of course, that we should pay very close regard to those whore we represent who feel aggrieved that cheating is going on.
The Cunard Countess has been the subject of heated debate, although perhaps more outside than in the House today. The Government have been concerned throughout to ensure that post-Falklands refits are carried out in United Kingdom yards. Many United Kingdom yards, public and private, have gained greatly from those contracts. One order—the Uganda—was diverted from Malta to Vosper Thornycroft in Southampton for that very reason. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said earlier, under the charter with Cunard very heavy penalties were due from the Government in the event of delay. We agreed a deferment, but the penalties still applied from the later date. The penalties cannot be precisely quantified as they are contingent upon the length of delay and the compensation that might be payable to Cunard for losses actually suffered. There is every likelihood, however, that they would have been twice or more than twice the value of the work.
The ship repair section of British Shipbuilders quotes for about 40 jobs per month, so we should consider this job in context. It normally has a 25 per cent. success rate. It treated this quotation very seriously, sending four men to Ascension Island. It quoted on 80 days, although it thinks that it could have done the job in 67 days. Incidentally, I agree with Opposition Members that British Shipbuilders doubts whether the Maltese can get 5,000 workpeople into the ship and do the work in the time. Nevertheless, British Shipbuilders had to weigh the balance of advantage and it concluded that it could not live with the impact of the financial penalties against the foreshortened time scale. Harland and Wolff and Smith's ship repairers were persuaded by the same arguments. They too, found it impossible to match Cunard's requirements.
Many questions have been raised about scrap and build. The short answer is that, however one devises the policy, it is usually a policy for the scrapyards rather than for the shipbuilding industry.
The House will be aware that other countries such as Belgium and Denmark offer more advantageous credit terms than we do, but they do not give production subsidies. If both elements of support are taken together, the United Kingdom comes about halfway up the league in terms of assistance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh raised a number of questions on defence orders. The Carrington declaration, if I may so describe it, was some time ago. I will write to my hon. Friend about this. Since British Shipbuilders was formed, it and the Government have agreed that particular yards should be the lead yards for particular classes of vessel. Follow-on orders are allocated after discussion and tender procedures among the other warship and mixed yards.
A number of hon. Members referred to advance Ministry of Defence orders. A number of orders are expected to be announced later this year, including the first of a new class of conventional submarines and several


other vessels, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement takes careful note of what has been said.
The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) pointed out that to some extent this is a regional problem, as it certainly is. That is why £1·1 billion in aid is going to the northern region in section 7 and section 8 assistance, £1 billion to the north-west and £1·3 billion to Scotland. We have not been backward in the help that we have given, precisely because there were structural difficulties in those areas.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) asked about the Government's commitment. We have given our commitment to the industry in the best possible way. On gross capital expenditure, the funding of capital — the investment programme for British Shipbuilders and its future — was £27 million in 1978–79, £18 million in 1979–80, £17 million in 1980–81 and £37 million in 1981–82—and £90 million is planned for 1983–84. That is not the manifestation of the policy of a Government who are not committed to a strong future for British Shipbuilders. We are spending £15 million on computer-aided design, computer-aided manufacture and computerisation. That is an investment for the future.
I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh that the merchant marine is required for strategic reasons. In reply to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), we do accept the reality. My hon. Friend the Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port asked about defence orders; these certainly are in order. I fully understand that the constituents of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) feel pride and anger. We have to deal with realities.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 278.

Division No. 119]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Coleman, Donald


Allaun, Frank
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Alton, David
Cook, Robin F.


Anderson, Donald
Cowans, Harry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)


Ashton, Joe
Crowther, Stan


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Cryer, Bob


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Dalyell, Tam


Bidwell, Sydney
Davidson, Arthur


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Deakins, Eric


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Dewar, Donald


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Dixon, Donald


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dobson, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Dormand, Jack


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Dubs, Alfred


Campbell, Ian
Duffy, A. E. P.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Canavan, Dennis
Eadie, Alex


Cant, R. B.
Eastham, Ken


Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Clarke, Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
English, Michael





Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Evans, John (Newton)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Field, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Flannery, Martin
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Ford, Ben
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Forrester, John
O'Brien, Oswald (Darlington)


Foster, Derek
Ogden, Eric


Foulkes, George
O'Halloran, Michael


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
O'Neill, Martin


Freud, Clement
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Palmer, Arthur


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Park, George


Ginsburg, David
Parker, John


Golding, John
Parry, Robert


Graham, Ted
Pavitt, Laurie


Grant, John (Islington C)
Pendry, Tom


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Pitt, William Henry


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Hardy, Peter
Race, Reg


Harman, Harriet (Peckham)
Radice, Giles


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Richardson, Jo


Haynes, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Robertson, George


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Rooker, J. W.


Home Robertson, John
Roper, John


Homewood, William
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Hooley, Frank
Ryman, John


Horam, John
Sandelson, Neville


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Sever, John


Hoyle, Douglas
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Short, Mrs Renée


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)
Silverman, Julius


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Skinner, Dennis


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


John, Brynmor
Snape, Peter


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Soley, Clive


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Spriggs, Leslie


Kerr, Russell
Stallard, A. W.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Lambie, David
Stoddart, David


Lamond, James
Strang, Gavin


Leadbitter, Ted
Straw, Jack


Leighton, Ronald
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Litherland, Robert
Tilley, John


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Tinn, James


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Watkins, David


McElhone, Mrs Helen
Weetch, Ken


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Welsh, Michael


McKelvey, William
White, Frank R.


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Maclennan, Robert
Whitlock, William


McNally, Thomas
Wigley, Dafydd


McNamara, Kevin
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


McTaggart, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


McWilliam, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Marks, Kenneth
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Winnick, David


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Woodall, Alec


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wright, Sheila


Maxton, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Mikardo, Ian



Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tellers for the Ayes:


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Mr. George Morton and


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Mr. Hugh McCartney.






NOES


Adley, Robert
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Aitken, Jonathan
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Alexander, Richard
Fookes, Miss Janet


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Forman, Nigel


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Ancram, Michael
Fox, Marcus


Arnold, Tom
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Aspinwall, Jack
Fry, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th.E)
Gardner, Sir Edward


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Banks, Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bendall, Vivian
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Goodlad, Alastair


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Gorst, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gow, Ian


Best, Keith
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bevan, David Gilroy
Grant, Sir Anthony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gray, Rt Hon Hamish


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Greenway, Harry


Blackburn, John
Grieve, Percy


Blaker, Peter
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Grist, Ian


Bowden, Andrew
Grylls, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gummer, John Selwyn


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bright, Graham
Hannam, John


Brinton, Tim
Haselhurst, Alan


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Hastings, Stephen


Brooke, Hon Peter
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Brotherton, Michael
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hawksley, Warren


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hayhoe, Barney


Bryan, Sir Paul
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Buck, Antony
Heddle, John


Budgen, Nick
Henderson, Barry


Bulmer, Esmond
Hicks, Robert


Burden, Sir Frederick
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butcher, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hordern, Peter


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n )
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Churchill, W. S.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby


Clegg, Sir Walter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Colvin, Michael
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Cope, John
KeMett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cormack, Patrick
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Corrie, John
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Costain, Sir Albert
King, Rt Hon Tom


Cranborne, Viscount
Knight, Mrs Jill


Critchley, Julian
Knox, David


Crouch, David
Lamont, Norman


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lang, Ian


Dorrell, Stephen
Latham, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lawrence, Ivan


Dover, Denshore
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lee, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Durant, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Eggar, Tim
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Lyell, Nicholas


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Macfarlane, Neil


Farr, John
MacGregor, John


Fell, Sir Anthony
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McQuarrie, Albert





Madel, David
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Major, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Marland, Paul
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Marlow, Antony
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Shepherd, Richard


Mawby, Ray
Shersby, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sims, Roger


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mayhew, Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Speed, Keith


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Speller, Tony


Miscampbell, Norman
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Monro, Sir Hector
Sproat, Iain


Montgomery, Fergus
Squire, Robin


Moore, John
Stainton, Keith


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stanley, John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Steen, Anthony


Mudd, David
Stevens, Martin


Murphy, Christopher
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Needham, Richard
Stokes, John


Nelson, Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Neubert, Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Newton, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Normanton, Tom
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Nott, Rt Hon Sir John
Thompson, Donald


Onslow, Cranley
Thorne, Neil (llford South)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Thornton, Malcolm


Osborn, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Trippier, David


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Parris, Matthew
Viggers, Peter


Patten, John (Oxford)
Waddington, David


Pawsey, James
Wakeham, John


Percival, Sir Ian
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pink, R. Bonner
Walker, B. (Perth )


Pollock, Alexander
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Porter, Barry
Waller, Gary


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Ward, John


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Warren, Kenneth


Proctor, K. Harvey
Watson, John


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wheeler, John


Rathbone, Tim
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Whitney, Raymond


Renton, Tim
Wickenden, Keith


Rhodes James, Robert
Wiggin, Jerry


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wilkinson, John


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rossi, Hugh



Rost, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Royle, Sir Anthony
Mr. Carol Mather and


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Mr. Robert Boscawen


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 216.

Division No. 120]
[10.12 pm


Adley, Robert
Atkinson, David (B'm'th.E)


Aitken, Jonathan
Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone,)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Banks, Robert


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Tom
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)


Aspinwall, Jack
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Berry, Hon Anthony






Best, Keith
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gray, Rt Hon Hamish


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Greenway, Harry


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Grieve, Percy


Blackburn, John
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Blaker, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grist, Ian


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Grylls, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Gummer, John Selwyn


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hannam, John


Bright, Graham
Haselhurst, Alan


Brinton, Tim
Hastings, Stephen


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Brotherton, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hayhoe, Barney


Browne, John (Winchester)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bryan, Sir Paul
Heddle, John


Buck, Antony
Henderson, Barry


Budgen, Nick
Hicks, Robert


Bulmer, Esmond
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butcher, John
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hordern, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Churchill, W. S.
Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jessel, Toby


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clegg, Sir Walter
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Cockeram, Eric
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Colvin, Michael
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Cope, John
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Cormack, Patrick
King, Rt Hon Tom


Corrie, John
Knight, Mrs Jill


Costain, Sir Albert
Knox, David


Cranborne, Viscount
Lamont, Norman


Critchley, Julian
Lang, Ian


Crouch, David
Latham, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lee, John


Dover, Denshore
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Eggar, Tim
Lyell, Nicholas


Eyre, Reginald
Macfarlane, Neil


Fairbairn, Nicholas
MacGregor, John


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fell, Sir Anthony
McQuarrie, Albert


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Madel, David


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Major, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Marland, Paul


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gb N)
Marlow, Antony


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Forman, Nigel
Mawby, Ray


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fox, Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mayhew, Patrick


Fry, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Gardner, Sir Edward
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Miscampbell, Norman


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Moate, Roger


Glyn, Dr Alan
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Montgomery, Fergus


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Moore, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Gorst, John
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gow, Ian
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mudd, David





Murphy, Christopher
Speed, Keith


Neale, Gerrard
Speller, Tony


Needham, Richard
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Nelson, Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Neubert, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Newton, Tony
Squire, Robin


Normanton, Tom
Stainton, Keith


Nott, Rt Hon Sir John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Onslow, Cranley
Stanley, John


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Steen, Anthony


Osborn, John
Stevens, Martin


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Stokes, John


Parris, Matthew
Stradling Thomas, J.


Patten, John (Oxford)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Pawsey, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Percival, Sir Ian
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pink, R. Bonner
Thompson, Donald


Pollock, Alexander
Thome, Neil (Ilford South)


Porter, Barry
Thornton, Malcolm


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Trippier, David


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Waddington, David


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wakeham, John


Renton, Tim
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rhodes James, Robert
Walker, B. (Perth)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Rifkind, Malcolm
Ward, John


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Watson, John


Rossi, Hugh
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rost, Peter
Wheeler, John


Royle, Sir Anthony
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Whitney, Raymond


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wickenden, Keith


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Winterton, Nicholas


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shepherd, Richard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shersby, Michael



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Carol Mather and


Smith, Sir Dudley
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



NOES


Abse, Leo
Carmichael, Neil


Allaun, Frank
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Alton, David
Clarke, Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)


Anderson, Donald



Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Coleman, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Cook, Robin F.


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Cowans, Harry


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)


Bennett, Andrew(Sf'fcp'f N)
Crowther, Stan


Bidwell, Sydney
Cryer, Bob


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)


Bottomley, Rt Hon k.(M'b'ro)
Dalyell, Tarn


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davidson, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Deakins, Eric


Buchan, Norman
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Callaghan, Jim (MiddTn &amp; P)
Dewar, Donald


Campbell, Ian
Dixon, Donald


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dobson, Frank


Canavan, Dennis
Dormand, Jack


Cant, R. B.
Dubs, Alfred






Duffy, A. E. P.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Lambie, David


Eadie, Alex
Lamond, James


Eastham, Ken
Leadbitter, Ted


Edwards, R. (Whampt'n S E)
Leighton, Ronald


Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


English, Michael
Litherland, Robert


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Evans, John (Newton)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Field, Frank
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Flannery, Martin
McCartney, Hugh


Ford, Ben
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Forrester, John
McElhone, Mrs Helen


Foster, Derek
McKelvey, William


Foulkes, George
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Maclennan, Robert


Freud, Clement
McNally, Thomas


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McNamara, Kevin


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McTaggart, Robert


Ginsburg, David
McWilliam, John


Golding, John
Marks, Kenneth


Graham, Ted
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)


Hamilton, W. W, (C'tral Fife)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Hardy, Peter
Maxton, John


Harman, Harriet (Peckham)
Mikardo, Ian


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Miller, Dr M, S. (E Kilbride)


Haynes, Frank
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Holland, S. (Ub'th, Vauxh'll)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Home Robertson, John
Morton, George


Homewood, William
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Hooley, Frank
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Horam, John
O'Brien, Oswald (Darlington)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Ogden, Eric


Hoyle, Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)
Park, George


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Parker, John


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Parry, Robert


John, Brynmor
Pavitt, Laurie


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Pendry, Tom


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Pitt, William Henry


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Kerr, Russell
Price, C. (Lewisham W)





Race, Reg
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Richardson, Jo
Tilley, John


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tinn, James


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Robertson, George
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Rooker, J. W.
Watkins, David


Roper, John
Weetch, Ken


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Welsh, Michael


Ryman, John
White, Frank R.


Sandelson, Neville
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Sever, John
Whitlock, William


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wigley, Dafydd


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Short, Mrs Ren6e
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Silverman, Julius
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Woodall, Alec


Snape, Peter
Woolmer, Kenneth


Soley, Clive
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Spearing, Nigel
Wright, Sheila


Spriggs, Leslie
Young, David (Bolton E)


Stallard, A. W.



Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stoddart, David
Mr. Allen McKay and


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


Straw, Jack

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises the serious problems facing the United Kingdom shipbuilding and ship repair industries; welcomes Her Majesty's Government's measures to sustain these industries and to encourage them to compete effectively in international markets; and condemns the Opposition's policies as entirely unrealistic and likely to undermine the long term objective of securing soundly based United Kingdom shipbuilding and ship repair industries.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Matrimonial Homes Bill [Lords], the Mental Health Bill [Lords] and the Pilotage Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Major.]

Matrimonial Homes Bill [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[MR. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

EFFECT OF RIGHTS OF OCCUPATION AS CHARGE ON DWELLING HOUSE

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 36, leave out 'or interest'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments 2 to 7.

The Solicitor-General: As the result of the passage of the Matrimonial Homes and Property Act 1981, the words "or interest" were deleted from seven provisions of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967. In consolidating those provisions in this Bill, those deletions were overlooked. The purpose of the amendment is rectify that.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 5, line 38, leave out `or interest'.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

CONTRACT FOR SALE OF HOUSE AFFECTED BY REGISTERED CHARGE TO INCLUDE TERM REQUIRING CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION BEFORE COMPLETION

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 6, line 18, leave out `or interest'.

No. 4, in page 6, line 21, leave out 'or interest'.

No. 5, in page 6, line 27, leave out 'or interest'.

No. 6, in page 6, line 41, leave out 'or interest'.—[Mr. Major.]

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION AFTER TERMINATION OF MARRIAGE, ETC.

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 7, line 16, leave out `or interest'.—[Mr. Major.]

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[MR. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

ADMISSION FOR ASSESSMENT

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 12, after 'under', insert 'the following provisions of'.
This amendment will bring the wording of clause 2(4) exactly into line with that of section 25(4) of the Mental Health Act 1959, from which it is derived.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 149 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 119, line 22, at end insert—
'15. In section 128(1)(b) of the Mental Health Act 1959 for the words "this Act" in both places where they occur there shall be substituted the words "the Mental Health Act I983".'.
I will speak at the same time, with permission, to amendment No. 3. These make consequential amend-ments to section 128.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 123, line 42, at end insert—
'(d) in section 12(4) for the words "section 28 of the Mental Health Act 1959", "Part V" and "the said Act of 1959" there shall be substituted respectively the words "section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983", "Part III" and "the said Act of 1983";
(e) in paragraph 7(7) of Schedule 4 for the words from the beginning to "1959" there shall be substituted the words "A restriction direction which was given under section 49 of the Mental Health Act 1983".'.— [The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 5 and 6 agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Pilotage Bill [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[MR. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

RIGHT OF LICENSED PILOT TO SUPERSEDE UNLICENSED PERSONS

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 29, line 29, leave out first 'a' and insert `the'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 36, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 37 to 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70

SHORT TITLE, CITATION, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 43, line 28, leave out from beginning to 'as' in line 29 and insert
'shall be included among the Acts that may be cited'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

TRANSITIONAL AND SAVING PROVISIONS

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 47, line 10, leave out paragraph 5.
I should take a little longer on this amendment and inform the House that it removes a transitional provision which is no longer required.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 3 and 4 agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order N. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

AGRICULTURE

That the draft Agricultural Products Processing and Marketing (Improvement Grant) (Amendment) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 21st February, be approved.—[Mr. Major.]

Question agreed to.

Special Constabulary

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]

Mr. Warren Hawksley: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this evening the future development of the special constabulary. When the Government were elected in 1979 it was very much on a policy of law and order. The special constabulary can play a large part in winning the battle that is going on to ensure that this is a safer country in which to live.
The greatest deterrent that Britain can have is a policeman on the beat, whether in our villages or towns. It makes no difference whether that policeman is a regular or a special officer. To be honest, in many cases our constituents would not know whether it was a special or a regular officer. In the old days we were used to village policemen who basically worked a 24-hour shift and 'were always available. Today, rightly, we have the eight-hour shift and we do not have policemen in every village and community.
To a great extent, that problem can be answered by an increased use of the special constable. The specials have a great advantage because they are usually available when the regular police force is under its greatest pressure. One thinks of nights or weekends when there are football matches. Those are the occasions on which the special constable is readily available. Special constables are not only useful as a way of bolstering and supporting our police force, but I believe and hope that the use and encouragement of such a voluntary force would fall in line with the Government's philosophy.
Another reason why we must look carefully at the roles of special constables and encourage them is the regrettable decision to give in to the pressures of the civil liberties lobby last week, in particular that of the National Council for Civil Liberties, and the orchestrated attacks of the British Medical Association and the churches on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. We shall have to give further powers to the police, because, as we said, it was a finely balanced piece of legislation.
If we have to give the police more help and support to balance that decision, I hope that we shall consider the support of and the increase in the special constabulary to be a way of doing that. In particular, it would put policemen back on the beat. Our policy to reverse the movement of putting policemen into panda cars which was started by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) was right. We should openly claim responsibility for and pride in that. That reversal could be speeded by the greater use of special constables.
Since the Government came to office, there has been a great increase in the number of police officers—there are about 9,000 more in England and Wales — and policemen are better paid. For that reason, I believe that there can be no objection now, as there has been in the past, by regular officers to the involvement of more special constables. I have had the pleasure of being a member of the local police authority in my area for four years. In my area we see the regulars and specials working well together. We can be proud of that.
Let us look at what has happened over the years to the numbers of special constables and why we need action at this time. Just before the war, in 1938, there were 118,000


special constables. In 1960 the figure had gone down to just over 48,000. By 1975, when we had the first report of the working party, the figure was 21,500. By 1981, it had dropped to 14,978. Although I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will say that there was an increase last year, it was only 182. We ought to be pleased that it was the first increase for 30 years, but it was still inadequate. In my police authority area, against a possible approved establishment of about 1,348, we have 334 special constables in post. That is a tragic story.
The second working party on special constables was set up in November 1979. It was a working party of the police advisory board and was constituted of representatives from the Home Office, the Association of County Councils, metropolitan authorities, the Metropolitan police, the City of London police, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, the Police Federation and four special constables. A broad body of men and women considered the needs of the special constabulary for the future.
I shall pick out three points that arose from the report, which are important recommendations. The first was about training, and the use to which that training could be put to make sure that a special constable was most useful and able to carry out more advanced police work. That was desirable. I support the recommendation. I welcome the fact that the report went into as much detail as to give a recommended training schedule. The report was published in 1981, but I wonder how much of that recommendation has been implemented by all the forces.
I expect that when my hon. and learned Friend replies he will suggest that it is up to each chief constable how he individually controls his force. That would be a disappointing answer. The Home Office should monitor what the authorities are doing in response to the working party's proposals. I hope also that, possibly tonight, we shall hear from the Home Office encouraging sounds about persuading and pressurising the local police authorities throughout the country to respond with greater urgency.
In the other two areas that I shall consider, the working party report is both revealing and at the same time disappointing: first, the name of the force, and, secondly, whether a bounty in the form that it is paid to the Territorial Army would be appropriate for the service.
The suggested change of name was "Reserve Police". It was supported by the representative group that submitted its views to the working party, yet unfortunately the working party rejected it. There is confusion among many of the public about what a special constable is and whether he is the same as a special branch officer or a member of the Special Patrol Group. There is genuine concern about that confusion. If, as the working party suggested, we use the name "Reserve Police", we shall do a lot better.
With regard to the bounty, I accept that the representative group decided against the proposal that was discussed by the working party. It is interesting that, in the report, the working party clearly states that it was the younger acting special constables who supported the idea. That is significant because it is they who, I believe, represent the people who do not join but would do so if a bounty were offered. I hope that we shall enrol the young as special constables to increase their numbers.
The present system provides a meagre allowance. I checked with my police authority today to find out exactly

what it is. If an officer does four hours duty a week, he is entitled to a show allowance which works out at 38p a week. If he works less than four hours a week, he is entitled to 19p a week. Many specials tell me that they do not bother to claim that allowance.
A bounty of £200 a year, which is payable on proficiency, attendance and training, as in the TA, would cost only £3 million. That should be compared with the £20 million or so which is being given as the cost of the youth training in the armed forces which was announced last week and it is equally good value for money. We should examine the bounty and a change of name. I hope that the Government will think again.
I also hope that my hon. and learned Friend will offer more hope that the training programme for which the working party report calls will be implemented by all chief constables and that the Home Office will keep a close eye on things and ensure that that happens.
There is no better time than today for the Government to start a campaign to increase our specials. Last month, Sir Kenneth Newman gave a large amount of space in his force's newspaper to a great boost for specials. Last week, the Bow Group publication by Tony Paterson and Roger Axworthy dealt with special constables. I do not agree with everything that they say, but the personal knowledge that they bring to the subject as former specials in the Metropolitan police commands respect for that publication. I am pleased that they support me with regard to a name, although the reserve force that they discuss is an elite. That is not necessarily the way in which to go about it. Having considered the problems deeply, they conclude that a bounty would help increase the numbers. I agree with them that we should set a target to double the number of special constables in, say, three years.
I hope that the Government will use the debate as a launching pad for a campaign to increase the number of specials, to train them better and to make more use of them, as the working party has urged.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) on his good fortune and discrimination in securing this debate to discuss the important subject of the special constabulary. We attach great importance to it and, as he rightly said, last year was the first in 30 years for which it has been possible to report an increase in their numbers, albeit an extremely modest one. It is, nevertheless, the first time for 30 years that the trend has been upwards rather than downwards. We welcome that and want to build upon and improve it.
Nobody doubts that the existence of an organised uniformed body of volunteers to augment the regular police is invaluable. The specials provide our police reserve and play an important part in building up good relations between the police and the public. My hon. Friend wishes to see more recruits joining the special constabulary. The Government wholeheartedly endorse what my hon. Friend said about that. Chief officers would welcome more volunteers coming forward, and in several areas they have tried imaginative ideas to encourage recruitment and to enhance the role of the specials. Constructive ideas are always welcome, especially local initiatives, because our police service and special


constabulary are locally based. To provide effective support to the regular force, the work of the specials must be geared to local needs.
I have read with interest the Bow Group paper to which my hon. Friend referred entitled "Extra Specials", and the Government will give further careful consideration to its recommendations. Action has already been taken on some points in the paper, such as recruitment and making more imaginative use of specials, as a result of the two recent studies of the role of the special constabulary to which my hon. Friend referred.
Two working parties were set up by the police advisory board. Both included representatives of the police staff associations and the special constabulary, as well as the local authority associations, the Home Office and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. Both were assisted by a representative group of special constables drawn from all parts of Britain. The first working party, which reported in 1976, recommended that the special constabulary should 'continue to be organised on a local basis, but proposed changes in rank structure and uniforms and recommended that the normal retiring age for special constables should be 55.
The second working party reported in July 1981. My hon. Friend mentioned proposals for changing the name of the specials. The working party considered the suggestion that the title should be changed to police reserve. Some specials believed that that title would more clearly illustrate their role to the public and would he an aid to recruitment. Others were opposed to change, believing that the present name was well known and a source of pride. As a change of name would require legislation, the working party concluded, on balance, that there was not a strong enough case for recommending a change of name at that time, but it saw an advantage in "police reserve" being used descriptively in explaining specials' work to the public, especially in recruitment literature. I can tell my hon. Friend that the term "special constabulary—the police reserve" is reflected in the new recruitment literature that has been prepared by the Home Office and made available to forces.
The second working party concluded that there should be no major change in the role of the special constabulary. It confirmed that special constables should, after suitable training, be able to perform police duties and to exercise police powers under the supervision of regular police officers, so as to enable those officers to concentrate their experience and skill where it is most needed. Specials should also be ready to take over routine policing functions so as to free regular police officers in the event of an emergency calling for large-scale police deployment. Specials provided valuable support during the civil disturbances in the summer of 1981 when they turned out to man police stations and to carry out routine duties so that regular officers could deal with the disorder on the streets.
Clearly, there are limits to the range of duties that specials can be asked to undertake. Chief constables would not deploy them to deal with serious disorder. Much work has been done during the past three years to improve the readiness, and the ability, of the police to respond to serious disorder where it occurs. The House would agree that this work today calls for the services of highly skilled and trained regular officers.
However, to say that there are limits to what the specials can do does not suggest that their present role

cannot be developed. The working party encouraged more imaginative use of specials. My hon. Friend referred especially to the training of the special constabulary, and I agree that it is important. There is no longer hostility between the regular forces and the specials. Those days are, happily, over. We have been assured by the Police Federation on many occasions that that is so, and we have no reason to doubt it. The federation says that where friction occurs it is often because regular officers lack confidence in the ability or training of specials to undertake some duties.
That is why the working party emphasised practical training and offered guidance to forces in formulating training programmes for both new recruits and serving specials. It also reminded chief officers of the need to ensure that regular recruits are familiar with the role of the specials. If the special constabulary is to carry out its role effectively, there must be proper understanding between both forces of the responsibilities and the abilities of each.
The working party recommended that chief constables should exercise discretion about the normal retirement age of 55 and keep fit and able specials beyond that age. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is nothing to prevent retired regular policemen from joining the specials if they wish to do so, unless they take up a new job on retirement from the police that would make them ineligible. To prevent conflicts of interest, there is a long-standing policy that people engaged in some occupations or holders of some offices should not be eligible to join the special constabulary. These include members of the armed forces, reserves, or serving members of the Territorial Army, members of private security organisations and holders of liquor licences among others. Those who are about to retire from the police force should consider whether they might still be able to offer their policing skill in the ranks of the specials.
My hon. Friend paid some attention to the idea of a bounty. I know from his earlier concern in these matters that he attaches considerable importance to the payment of a bounty, and we have discussed this before. The working party considered this carefully and noted that the problems of recruitment and wastage that faced the special constabulary are to be found in many other voluntary organisations. Payments were not necessarily a significant factor in maintaining membership. There was evidence that some younger members of the specials would support the idea of an allowance linked with proficiency. On the other hand, the longer serving specials were generally opposed to it. They wished to maintain the entirely voluntary nature of the service and they doubted whether a proficiency allowance 'would help in improving recruitment or reducing wastage. The payment of £200 a year to each special constable — the suggestion considered—would cost £3 million. As my hon. Friend knows better than many, in the current economic climate many police budgets are tightly drawn and the working party concluded that this was not the time to introduce some form of bounty or payment. Nor would it be right to depart from the principle of shared financial responsibility, between central and local government, and make some exceptional arrangements for the payment of a bounty for special constables. I note that the authors of the Bow Group paper estimate that, under their proposals, a bounty of £250 a year would cost £25 million to £30


million. That would be about equivalent to the cost of an additional 1,500 regular police officers and their equipment.
I am grateful for the tribute that my hon. Friend paid to the achievement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in increasing the regular forces in England and Wales by over 9,000 officers since May 1979. I agree that the increase in the number of regular officers has meant a great increase in the ability of police officers to deal with street crime, and to win back some of the confidence of the public in the ability of the police to protect them, that has recently been lost.
I agree with my hon. Friend that a special constable is virtually, if not entirely, as welcome on the beat to our constituents as a regular. I am certain that policing on the beat is of major importance in the fight against street crime. It is a proper use of special constables. The Government do not believe that the payment of a bounty would be the most economical use of the resources that it would take up.
My hon. Friend asked for assurances about progress in implementing working party recommendations and for a statement of the Government's attitude towards further progress. I assure him that chief officers of police are fully committed to strengthening the number of specials and making good use of them. At the end of 1982 the police advisory board reviewed the progress made in implementing the recommendations in its working party reports. The general picture that emerged was encouraging.
The majority of forces are obtaining results from their efforts to recruit more specials. Active steps are being taken by forces to bring the special constabulary to the notice of applicants for the regular police who are marginally below the standard for regular appointment. Nearly all forces now accept applicants at 18½ years of age and generally chief officers are exercising their discretion in suitable cases to retain specials beyond the normal retirement age.
The majority of forces have introduced or are considering introducing recruitment tests based on the regular police initial entrance test, but usually with a lower pass mark. A few forces feel that formal entrance tests can place otherwise suitable older applicants at a disadvantage and are using other ways to assess applicants' ability. All forces have introduced a formal 12-month probation period for new recruits or are continuing as before with regular assessments of specials throughout their service.
Many forces are now placing greater emphasis on ensuring that specials are capable of performing a wider range of duties—including, for example, the manning of casualty inquiry bureaux and the performance of station duties. The personal skills and experience of specials are being used when possible and most forces are keeping records of such skills and experience that are available to them, even though it may not be possible to use them at present. Skills reported to be especially useful have been in languages, first aid instruction and the use of communication equipment.
All forces are already using or will soon be using a training programme devised on the lines of the guidance

of the 1981 working party report—an example of the guidance from the centre for which my hon. Friend asked —and forces report that the introduction of more varied training has been generally welcomed by longer-serving members, who are especially pleased with the emphasis given to practical exercises.
Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary look at the special constabulary in the course of force inspections. They examine how the specials are being used and the training that they receive. The inspectorate can point out to the chief constable ways in which better use could be made of special constables or more positive efforts could be made in recruiting them, as well as advising on modernisation and diversification of the training given to them. That is an important part of the valuable job carried out by the inspectorate in assisting chief constables to achieve a relatively uniform standard of training, among other things, throughout England and Wales.
Some particular developments are worth mentioning. The home beat specials initiative in Northumbria is an imaginative way of strengthening the specials and involving communities in efforts to prevent crime and to solve local problems. There has also been emphasis on recruitment from the ethnic minority communities in the west midlands where about 100 out of a force of 800 specials are from such minorities. In general, members of the minority communities seem more willing to join the specials than the regulars, and a Home Office study group last summer encouraged forces to take positive steps to encourage further recruitment of specials from the minority communities.
As my hon. Friend said, Sir Kenneth Newman has made clear his intention to boost the number of specials and to involve them in local projects such as neighbourhood watch. It is not only in city areas that the specials can make a contribution. They can be just as important in rural areas where they live among and are in touch with the local communities. Some forces are initiating recruitment drives in co-operation with parish councils. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the chief constable of his own area is at present considering this with the local authorities. The inspectorate keeps in touch with developments in recruitment and in the use of specials through the forces inspections to which I have referred.
I believe that all this demonstrates a real change of climate in the past few years. I know that my hon. Friend, with his experience of serving on a police authority for many years, will welcome that. There is now a great awareness of the role that the specials can play both in supporting the regular force and in harnessing community support. They are invaluable in an emergency, they share the day-to-day routine, they are out in numbers every Saturday at football grounds and they were out in strength for the marathon on Sunday in London.
The Government will continue to support and encourage the recruitment, training and imaginative use of that very valuable and dedicated force, the special constabulary.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Eleven o' clock.